posted
There are an awful lot of very good parents in this forum. There really are. There are alot of people who are doing there best to raise thier kids to be good human beings and doing a wonderful job of it. I think of people like Ela, Belle, ScottR, Icarus, Vash(cant remember your Hatrack name, sorry)Porter and Bev, and many others who have been talking about their kids on here for years. Erik, I didnt know you had kids, but I'm sure you're a great dad. Anyways, there seems to be a preponderance of amazing parents on this forum. Just wanted to point that out. That no matter how you all are raising your kids, most of you seem to be doing it right.
edit: I left out Rivka, who I think of as an amazing mom, and Papa Moose and Mama Squirrel, who should be allowed to populate an entire planet all on thier own!
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They do seem to be doing that. I again apologize for (in my usual unconscious way) being condescending.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with you (no. 6) that violence leads to violence. I do disagree with you on the assertions that spanking is violence, and that violence is never, ever right. Could you back those statements up?
Edit: and a smiley for good measure Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by no. 6: They do seem to be doing that. I again apologize for (in my usual unconscious way) being condescending.
To be clear, my anger at you was not because you disagree with me, but because I found you insulting and condescending. I appreciate the apology.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by no. 6: Surgery is not violence. It is healing.
Unless it's torture. Then it's violence.
But, whether it's torture or healing, the action is the same: using a really sharp knife to cut someone. The difference is the intent, whether to hurt or help. I can't reconcile this belief with
quote:I don't believe that there is "calm corporal punishment". This is a failure of reason, and a mirror of violence.
Hitting a child is an action in the same way that cutting someone open is an action. Surgery is often violent and painful, yet we approve of it because it might lead to greater good. How is this different from spanking a child who doesn't respond to other forms of discipline?
You already differentiate between different motivations for the same actions in the surgery example; why does that not apply to the subject of childrearing?
posted
If a parent can honestly, without bs, hit their children and know that they are doing it to out of a motivation to help their children, and not because they're angry and upset, then I am right with you, Crowswife. However, my experience is that this is rarely the case. I am not saying that it can't be, nor am I saying anyone on this thread is anything less than a good parent when they spank their children. I don't know their children or their family. I can only speak from my experience.
I can't see the first page in this thread, but I think a vital point that I haven't seen discussed is that pain, in and of itself, teaches nothing unless it's paired with an effective means of communication that helps the child, or person, understand why what they did wrong was wrong. I firmly believe that pain isn't usually the best way of communicating right and wrong. So, I would further add the caveat to what can be good spanking to the above 'right attitude' that of 'right communication'.
For what it's worth, I got spanked quite frequently when I was a child.
My main objection to this thread is the assertion at the beginning of this thread that spanking, 'smacking' for the love of christ, pain is some kind of automatic fix-it for the problems of children or society. This seems to me to take a rather cavalier attitude towards suffering that I find distasteful and, further, gives an automatic out for anyone inflicting pain on their children. This point has already been addressed to some degree, but I just wanted to chime in with my two cents here.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Vash(cant remember your Hatrack name, sorry)
Here and very flattered to be included in that list.
I haven't posted lately, mostly because I've been busy. I haven't posted in meaningful threads in a long time, because I just can't see it accomplishing anything other than losing face with people whose respect I care about (and think I have) but with whom I violently disagree (pun intended). This is one of those threads.
But I think something is not being said here, though Doc Strange touched on it. If it was said elsewhere and I missed it, I apologize-- I have merely skimmed.
As strongly as most pacifists believe that violence is always wrong, I believe that violence is sometimes right and necessary. I think children can learn something positive from corporal punishment (which I *do* try to avoid and specifically try to make it as calm and reasoned as possible). I think children can learn that justice and goodness sometimes means that the strong intervene, violently, on behalf of the weak. To that end, corporal punishment is generally reserved in this household (I try to be consistent on this and mostly do a good job) for one circumstance-- physically attacking others.
When someone (and it's almost exclusively my oldest two) takes it upon themselves to kick, punch, push or shove their brother or sister, I stand them up and ask them what the rule is. They respond and then they receive one open handed swat on the rear. You may say they learn violence from this. I say they *will* learn violence from somewhere (more on that later). But there is also more than the child being punished. The other 4 children are learning, too. They are learning that there is an attacker and a victim-- what violence is justifiable and what is not. I refuse to believe that children are not smart enough to tell the difference between punishment and an attack. They are learning that the role of authority is to intervene and prevent that from happening, violently if necessary. They are learning that an important part of authority is meeting out justice and seeing to it that violent attackers in our society are met and stopped, force for force. The offender is learning that if they violate the rules against using force, that rule will not protect them, either (that those who live by the sword will also die by it). I believe these are important-- I'll even say essential-- lessons.
It's a violent world. Even now, for all our comfort, a substantial number of people live under threat. Certainly the majority throughout history have. More importantly, history has shown that the only thing that will stop attempts at violent take over and mayhem is violent opposition. Non-violent resistance is fine for people with consciences, but when dealing with a psychopath, physically subduing him is the only option... unless you are willing to let his murderous spree continue until he directs it inwards. For this reason, we arm our police forces, even in countries where they aren't allowed firearms.
I believe that G. K. Chesterton was dead on about a lot of things, but I think he was possibly the most right when he said that violence is "not the best way of settling differences, it's the only way of preventing their being settled for you." Or, as John Stuart Mill put it, violence "is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things... the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight-- nothing which is more important than his own personal safety-- is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." I will teach my children this. I think you should teach yours this, whether by use of corporal punishment or not. To see the impact of these lessons, one need look no further than United flight 93, five years ago. When you are on board a plane with people intent on using it as a suicide weapon, peaceful resistance costs lives. They knew what had to be done. They were steeled to the task. I dare say it's because they were taught, growing up, that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
posted
Jim, I would argue that if you stop one of your kids from attacking another and then impose some form of punishment you've already taught them that the strong should intervene on behalf of the weak, and the fact that the particular punishment you choose is physical is not necessary to that lesson.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: The offender is learning that if they violate the rules against using force, that rule will not protect them, either (that those who live by the sword will also die by it).
It is necessary to this one.
Edited to add: it is also necessary to teaching them that there *is* a time and place for violence, which is a major part of my point. Apologies for not making it clear I intended that lesson as well.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to get a few things straight terminology-wise, and then make an argument regarding "conditioning" theory and what it might have to say about corporal punishment of children.
Terms:
Positive reward -- this is use of a reward contingent upon a behavior.
Negative reward -- this is withholding a reward when the behavior is emitted.
Positive punishment -- this is use of a noxious stimulus (= painful) when a behavior is emitted.
Negative punishment -- this is removal or "withholding" of punishment when a behavior is emitted.
Extinction -- this is an attempt to reduce the frequency of a behavior through with-holding of positive reinforcers, or by breaking the contingency between behavior and reward (i.e., random reinforcers can also extinguish a behavior under certain conditions).
Now, with that under our belts, we have to a make a giant leap into the realm of cognition. Basically, while "behaviorist" models of human (and especially child) behavior were common in the lat 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries, people began to notice things that weren't easily explainable by the history of rewards and punishments that an individual human experienced. For one thing, extinguishing behaviors is often much harder than simple behavior theory would predict -- in fact, sometimes it seems just plain impossible to extinguish a behavior using systems of reinforcement and punishment. There's a huge primacy effect -- the thing you learn first sticks...which is completely counter to all the current theories of learning.
In short, while there are still people who use Pavlovian or Operant conditioning models for human behavior, the number of such people among practitioners is dwindling...for good reason.
Cognitive theorists have a better time dealing with maturational effects during the human lifespan, and a lot of research effort has gone into figuring exactly what human minds are capable of comprehending at different states of development.
Okay, so where does that leave us with respect to corporal punishment. The simple answer is that there is NO SIMPLE ANSWER. The personality of the individual (child in this case) has a lot to do with how the punishment is perceived. The "system" of rewards and punishments in the environment (the parents, siblings, etc.) also has a big effect, but it's not so straight-forward as to indicate that every kid who is beaten will turn out to be a sociopath, or that a single spanking may or may not be "too much."
I would like to be counted among those who believe that consistency is important. I would also like to be counted among those who think that the early patterns established (through consistency or lack thereof) are doubly (if not triply) important.
Here's some points to ponder:
A) Random reinforcement leads to "superstitious" behavior in animals. In humans, it goes by different names -- like neurosis perhaps, or even worse. It is the illogical belief that a behavior will be rewarded despite solid evidence to the contrary.
B) Paradoxical reinforcement is very real in humans. Social interaction is reinforcing in humans (and in many animals). "Attention seeking" behaviors are not always the ones the parents desire, but if they work to get "attention" (even if that attention is a punishment), then there's a reinforcing aspect to it all. It's at least a partial explanation for persistence of tantrums.
C) From a child's mental point of view, inconsistency is a lot like randomness. It's also a lot like a variable interval/variable time schedule. If they can't figure out when they'll get "reinforced" for a behavior they've already acquired, they will generally keep emitting that behavior for a lot longer time (with greater persistence) than if they were used to reinforcement every single time. It's a lot easier to extinguish a behavior that's been on a 1:1 behavior to reinforcement regimen than one that's been reinforced "at random" after it was initially established.
4) Humans are capable of one-trial learning. Kids form hypotheses about how the world works. If they think there's a connection between behavior A and reinforcer B, then there is...for them. Breaking that connection can be awfully tough if you are inconsistent or random in your delivery of rewards and punishments.
Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
So...the best advice really IS to avoid it except in serious situations, and use it sparingly so that the association is to a small but important set of "things I did." If you use it at all.
Is it possible to get the same message across through positive reinforcement only, or by withholding rewards (e.g., time out) when wrong behaviors are emitted. YES...but it takes longer and requires more patience. Sometimes that's just not an option.
And some kids don't respond well or learn under those conditions. Some children will learn a "no-no" based on hearing a harsh tone once from their parents. Some children wouldn't learn it even if you use corporal punishment.
Blanket statements like "no child should EVER be spanked" aren't really based on theories of learning or cognition, really... It comes from suppositions and some research that shows children's aggression towards other kids tends to rise immediately after they are hit.
What's really internalized and what the long-term consequences are of infrequent spanking used mainly for the startle effect (i.e., not incredibly painful)...there isn't really good data on it. Anyone who claims there is should pony up with the research. Let's look at it and see what it really says.
Conversely, anyone (and I don't really see anyone here saying this) who says that frequent spankings and beatings are excellent child-rearing techniques should likewise pony up.
This stuff about "how things used to be" is a load of nonsense. It means nothing. How one was personally raised means nothing (case studies are interesting but not very informative for general policy setting, imho. They make for great cautionary tales, but there's no database of replications to draw solid conclusions from).
In summary: there's nothing definitive that should be said at the extremes of this debate. The more toward either pole one's position on this is, the less data and theory there is to support it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch - Bob's post makes my head hurt. I comfort myself knowing my three kids are past all of this, and any mistakes I made in raising them, are my mistakes alone, and not much now can be down by looking back and regretting.
While as a parent I did ocassionally deliver corporal punishment, I don't think I was the right person to do so. By that I mean, I find it very difficult to deliver corporal punishment "as a calm and reasoned person" (to quote Jim-Me). I'm too emotional to be dealing out physical punishment.
Some people can, some people can't. I realize I have a temper, and because of MYSELF, I probably should not use that discipline option.
I've grown a lot as a parent. Many things I would do differently if I had it to do over. But I wouldn't begin to tell other parents they should or shouldn't use a specific means of discipline, because they have a different personality and will come across differently with it than I would.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If a parent can honestly, without bs, hit their children and know that they are doing it to out of a motivation to help their children, and not because they're angry and upset, then I am right with you, Crowswife. However, my experience is that this is rarely the case. I am not saying that it can't be, nor am I saying anyone on this thread is anything less than a good parent when they spank their children. I don't know their children or their family. I can only speak from my experience.
I'm not advocating corporal punishment so much as taking issue with the statement that it is always, in all circumstances, wrong.
posted
I have a lot of well behaved kids in my toddler class(2-3). I have nine kids in the class and the centers policy is towards using positive reinforcemennts and natural consequences (no corporal punishment or time outs instead the consequence relates to the action, if a child hits they can't go back to playing until they can work it out with the hit child, if a child throws food on the ground they are done eating and have to throw away their plate) The idea is that the kids most of the time aren't trying to misbehave, they simply lack the skills necessary to consistently act how adults want them to. The approach tries to help kids learn the problem solving skills and language skills they need so they can use more adult manners of resolving issues instead of tantrums and hitting. The thing is, I was really skeptical when I started but it works. The kids do mess up but they do a great job of fixing their mistakes and still listen to teachers as well as anyone could expect a 2-3 year old to behave.
Also interesting to me is that parents who have switched over to this method at home almost always report improvements in behavior over the time-out or punishment method. I really do think that too many people in the public believe that kids should act like adults and be punished when they don't. Kids often do things like hit because they don't have the language skills to explain that they were still using that toy and were not ready to let someone else have it. It takes months and months of practice saying, I was using that toy, you can have a turn when I am done for a two year old to have the skills to resolve conflict that way. Punishing them does nothing to speed up this process and does not achieve the goal of teaching them problem solving skills. Instead it teaches them to either relinquish their toys to the agressor to avoid punishiment or to hit them without being caught, not desirable behavior at all.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not an "advocate" of corporal punishment either; I just disagree that it is always wrong.
Daycare centers virtually never use corporal punishment, with good reason. But, in my experience, daycare centers are not the ones who are the primary influence on those kids' behavior, and in many cases they rely on the parents to deal with behavior they cannot deal with.
Maybe it's my math background, but I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be evidence in favor of absolute statements. I do, however, find anecdotal evidence to be useful as evidence against absolute statements. It's the whole deductive reasoning/counterexample thing.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I've decided that, given your statements, I must have no idea what the word "violence" means to you, because otherwise your statements just don't make sense.
Would would please explain what you mean by violence?
The following is a list of acts that I believe are justified at times. They all are violent to one degree or another:
Killing an animal so you can eat it
Killing an animal so you can wear it
Killing an animal (like a rabid dog) because it's dangerous
Killing an animal (like a mosquito) because it's a pest
Killing a tree so that you can build a house
Cutting a piece of lumber to build a house
Cutting somebody's throat open to perform a tracheotomy
cutting open somebody's abdomen and cutting out a tumor
going to war and killing the enemy to defend your country
going to war to defend other people
physically attacking somebody who is trying to harm me or someone else
physically interposing my body in the doorway, therefore denying entrance to somebody who wants to harm my family
the police putting a criminal in handcuffs and forcing him to go do jail/court/prison
calling the police to get them to physically restrain somebody who's causing problem
posted
I don't have kids. However, I probably would try not to use corporal punishment. I remember being spanked as a kid. Once, I was spanked for closing my bedroom door too hard. I think it was one of the last times I was ever spanked. I was maybe 12 or so. I remember it extremely vividly. To this day, when my dad touches me, I often remember that incident. I wish my parents hadn't spanked me, because I think it might have contributed to my dislike of being touched.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and for what it's worth, I do not want to use corporal punishment like my parents did. It was degrading, and I think it did a lot to harm my relationship with my father.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, I agree with it as it applies to me. I wouldn't presume to comment on your relationship with your father. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My opinion is that striking a child is the laziest form of discipline. It happens because parents don't want to go to all the trouble of using rewards and bargaining with chips that will be motivating to a child. They just want them to stop/shut up/clean up whatever RIGHT NOW.
This has been my experience. I spanked as a child and everytime (with one exception) it was done out of anger/fury or misunderstanding.
quote: pain, in and of itself, teaches nothing unless it's paired with an effective means of communication that helps the child, or person, understand why what they did wrong was wrong. I firmly believe that pain isn't usually the best way of communicating right and wrong. So, I would further add the caveat to what can be good spanking to the above 'right attitude' that of 'right communication'.
Good point. Toddlers may have no idea what to link the pain to unless there communication.
I don't like spanking. I think there is a better way in most circumstances.
Thanks Bob for a great post.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maybe it's my math background, but I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be evidence in favor of absolute statements. I do, however, find anecdotal evidence to be useful as evidence against absolute statements. It's the whole deductive reasoning/counterexample thing.
This is what I was trying to get at. There are several people in the Hatrack community that have either directly described being abused by their parents or have alluded to it. If violence truly begat violence then these people would all be abusing their kids the same way. Since they say they are not, they're either all liars and child abusers or #6 is wrong in stating in such absolute terms that violence begats violence.
I also don't agree with describing corporal punishment as violence. Unfortunately I've seen it used as violence when parents lose their tempers, but I've also seen it used as a form of correction. I was spanked as a kid, but never abused. I don't know if I will spank my kids or not. I'm leaning towards not but there will be a plan in place whatever we choose. Consistancy is the key, and that requires a plan.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you are coming up with your plan, make sure to cover what to do when your child:
- Takes all the eggs out of the fridge and smashes them on the floor. Let's make the child 15 months for this one. - Uses a marshmallow from Lucky Charms to make a fake tooth to tape on a note to the Tooth Fairy, asking for a dollar. The child is, oh, seven. - Eats the recipe in home ec. I don't mean the food. I mean the paper recipe. The kid is eleven. - Tells the Sunday School teacher that she used to have a brother named Tommy, but he was murdered. There was no such sibling, but the teacher believes the kid. The kid is five. - Makes up words that are not swears -- mothermucker and bodgammit -- and uses them at dinner with your spouse's parents. "Whaaaaat? They are not swears!" The child is nine.
Also, be sure to cover what you do when five dollars is missing from the kitchen table but neither of your two children has any idea where it went. Big honest eyes here. What do you do the second and third time this event occurs?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
I understand basically what you're saying here Bob_Scopatz, and it makes sense, but if it's true, doesn't it logically follow that NO type of punishment would be effective at a child that age?
If the child is too young to be able to make the mental connection with reaching for a hot burner and spanking, isn't the connection between reaching for a hot burner and a time out the same difficulty? I'm not sure, but I would be tempted to think that a long-term punishment, like a time out or a lecture on the dangers of whatever, would be even more confusing to the child.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
I understand basically what you're saying here Bob_Scopatz, and it makes sense, but if it's true, doesn't it logically follow that NO type of punishment would be effective at a child that age?
If the child is too young to be able to make the mental connection with reaching for a hot burner and spanking, isn't the connection between reaching for a hot burner and a time out the same difficulty? I'm not sure, but I would be tempted to think that a long-term punishment, like a time out or a lecture on the dangers of whatever, would be even more confusing to the child.
Immediacy is key. You see a child reaching for the stove and yell out a warning -- the kid'll get that message. We're not talking the need for millisecond reaction times. Catching the child "in the act" and yelling or swatting is going to be effective. So, no, I wouldn't say that "no punishment is going to be effective.
A long-term punishment might be even more confusing to a child. A lecture and time out may not work for some things at some ages. Certainly before the kid understands spoken language very well, a lecture isn't very effective...
There are definite maturational stages to consider, for sure.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense to me now.
I think I've heard about the various maturational stages, and what a child can understand or reason at each one. Do you know if they're widely agreed upon, or is this another area where one "expert" will say a five year old can understand complex reasoning and another "expert" will claim that it isn't until 10 that a child moves beyond basic discipline-avoidance behavior?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a lot of disagreement. Piaget was the acknowledged expert for many decades, but his sort of case study work (he observed his daughter for the most part and wrote her up as the universal pattern for all human children) has been supplanted by research into cognitive development.
There are many other folks out there with theories and stages -- Klaus Riegel is the one I studied most and I suspect he's pretty dated by now. I much prefer actual research to the theory-based approaches. As you might expect, however, the research always lags (significantly) behind the theories.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, we've used "clicker training" to great success with our dog, which is straight-up operant conditioning as far as I understand it (you link the sound of the click to the promise of a treat, and then click at the exact moment the dog does the desired behavior, following with a treat as soon as you can). Does anyone ever try to use this type of "training" on small children, who are too young to be able to reason yet?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, I think the folks who advocate clicker training would faint at the thought of shock collars.
I'm just curious about how many of the lessons we've learned from raising our cunning, exuberant dog would translate over to a cunning, exuberant 2 year old child. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes! There's a famous case of either Operant or Pavlovian conditioning used on a child by one of the old-time behaviorists. I've forgotten the exact particulars, but I recall they used shock or loud noises as a noxious stimulus (as well as rewards, iirc). Anyway, this could all be apocryphal but the story goes that the kid turned into a neurotic mess.
At any rate, Operant conditioning works on humans, especially young ones. But...as with anything in animal behavior and training, the smarter the "animal," the better trained the person doing the training should be. And I'm pretty sure that Child Protective Services would have some things to say about click-training a child.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, that's true, we'd probably be getting some interesting calls from schoolteachers if our kids started drooling whenever anyone snapped their fingers. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never met a non-violent person who could not (at least in theory) be driven to violence under extreme circumstances. But, in the meantime, their refusal to use violence in "normal circumstances" means that the world is a more pleasant place overall.
On the other hand, I've rarely met a non-military- (or law-enforcement)-trained person who advocates use of violence as a proper response who didn't tend to overuse it (at least in theoretical settings) -- basically getting to the point of deadly force long before it was actually THE ONLY OPTION.
From a life-philosophy point of view, I much prefer those who swear off violence and must be driven to it to those who advocate violence and can't seem to stop themselves.
Professionals (such as military or law enforcement) who have the proper training generally (but not always) have a good grounding in how to de-escalate, manage situations, and keep them from becoming violent if possible. But among the average Joe, I'd have to say such knowledge and perspective is sorely lacking.
We aren't that far removed from the days when social slights were cause for a duel. I think the number of situations in which violence is the only correct response is vanishingly small. And, in reality, with a bit of foresight (sometimes by people who were our leaders in the past) the whole thing could've been avoided entirely -- so...even the times when NOW violence becomes almost mandatory were not really inevitable if we take a long-enough view of the situation.
Having said that... if someone is threatening your life or the life of a loved one and you get the opportunity to stop them, you should do it, even if it means taking violent action.
That has nothing to do with child-rearing though. I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that there would be a parent-child situation in which violence was the only correct response, but I think that violence is often avaiable among a host of right options.
I was speaking generally, not about parenting in particular. Furthermore, I'm not advocating increasing the list of offenses for which violence is the only response in general, I'm speaking against the-rather silly, in my opinion-idea that violence is always wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, I've rarely met a non-military- (or law-enforcement)-trained person who advocates use of violence as a proper response who didn't tend to overuse it (at least in theoretical settings) -- basically getting to the point of deadly force long before it was actually THE ONLY OPTION.
Could you clarify that? It kinda sounds like you are saying that people who don't describe themselves as pacifists are almost always thugs.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
Violently yanking your child out of the way of a car that is about to hit them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I read him as referring to those who are "[eager to] advocate use of violence," as in "perseverate on it in normal conversation and presentation of self to the world." [i.e., as opposed to just "willing to use violence"] But that's just my read, of course.
---
Edited to add: That is, I was reading him as comparing extremes, and then remarking on which extreme he was more comfortable erring towards in trying to balance a middle course. But I think I'll just shut up now and let him speak for himself. (I'm just feeling chatty today. That, combined with a tummy trouble that keeps me home, has made me rather run off at the mouth.)
posted
Would you advocate violence as a response to making too much noise in a public library? Of course not, right?
Say I go into my local library, find a table near the back, and pull my CD player and some external speakers out of my backpack, and start rocking out.
A librarian might come by and ask me to stop.
Say I ignore this directive?
They might ask me to leave.
What if I still ignore them?
They might have a police officer come to escort me out.
If I ignore him, he might quite likely try to eject me against my wishes. If I resist his efforts, there is a good likelihood I will get arrested, and the more strenuously I resist this arrest, the more violently I will be treated.
-o-
Pacifism is only workable, I believe, when either there is a system in place to do your violence for you, or when you are fortunate enough to never be severely tested in your resolve. I don't play my boombox in the library, and I follow society's rules, and I don't get my ass kicked by the cops. I am never violent, because I am lucky enough to live in a society where most of the people around me are never violent either, and where there is a system of law in place to protect my rights and my family for me.
-o-
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the only reason you can parent at all is because you are bigger and smarter. All parenting is quietly based on an unacknowledged coersion, and you can only fool yourself that it is otherwise if your children never test its limits. All other strategies only work if your children play along.
Take any parenting situation you want and I'll play what-if with you. Sooner or later, you will run out of options, if I continue to ask you what you will do if your strategies don't work. At that point, you will have to decide if you use coersion or if you will be one of those parents whose children scream and run the household, and who are powerless to stop it because they don't know what to do.
I think many children can be parented without ever being spanked. Possibly most; I am undecided. I think your goal as a parent should be to never spank, because if you spank in anger, it's too hard to trust yourself to know if you're spanking because there is no alternative, or because you are angry.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Icarus, I read him as referring to those who are "[eager to] advocate use of violence," as in "perseverate on it in normal conversation and presentation of self to the world." [i.e., as opposed to just "willing to use violence"] But that's just my read, of course.
But then that's a non-statement isn't it? People who are eager to use violence are inclined to use it when it shouldn't be used? Is that a meaningful dichotomy?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you clarify that? It kinda sounds like you are saying that people who don't describe themselves as pacifists are almost always thugs.
That wasn't my intention. CT is exactly right and said better than I even tried to.
I don't really count people who discuss violence within the context of a discussion ON violence, btw. I'm talking about people who bring this stuff up as a point in every-day conversation. Like "man, if someone did that to me, they'd be dead meat" (or whatever).
I'm probably still not being clear. Sorry. We're heading out the door. I'll try to respond later.
MPH: I think the scenario of "violently yanking an arm" is a stretch.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
I agree that resorting to "violence" (and I'm not big on how one side of the debate has chosen the terms, btw) first is wrong. I think, however, that "violence" could become the "only" right option when all other options have proven ineffectual, and when curbing a behavior is important enough that it's worth going to that extreme (i.e., some fights are just not worth picking).
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pacifism is only workable, I believe, when either there is a system in place to do your violence for you, or when you are fortunate enough to never be severely tested in your resolve.
There are two more possibilities: when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve; or when you have no particular resolve.
That said, you'd have to be a pretty amazing parent to manage the third option all the time, and the FOURTH option pretty much sticks you right in the "lousy parent" category.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yup. Although some of that is because I stay out of the gun control threads. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
