posted
For the longest time, I considered my dad's yelling at me to be a show of power that went beyond what was needed for any given situation he was yelling at me. It was as if he forgot I was his daughter and not some Marine like him who signed up for a little yelling and roughness.
Did I consider it abusive? Not at the time.
Do I consider it abusive now? Only very slightly. I will admit to having an initial fear of any man that yells, not even at me, just in front of me but that fear usually goes away and where I used to burst into tears and hide my face, I now tend to yell back. Women yelling at me, on the other hand...it doesn't affect me in even a similar fashion and it never has. Sure I feel bad for doing something to deserve it or I get upset for someone thinking I deserved it but it's not the fear that I get from men.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the perilous waters of verbal abuse. I don't know what's what anymore in that area, but I don't think anyone does, really... not even the authorities. My two cents is that yelling or not yelling doesn't have much to do with whether it's abuse, but it's how often and how controlled and what's said and how long it lasts. Kind of how I feel about spanking kids. Moderation in all things. Extreme moderation.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the difference? Depends, really...there are times when you don't have the time to explain to a 2 year old WHY they should do something. It might be a danger issue, like crossing the road, or touching a hot stove,or it may be another issue completely
Kwea, I simply can't agree. I have kept three very active, strong willed children safe without so much as slap to the hand. It takes a lot of vigilance, plus a small fortune in safety devices. My kids ride in a stroller until about 4. We keep safety gates at the kitchen entrances. We don't give them the space to get hurt until they can understand the notion of danger.
I do think spanking is abuse, and on a much higher level than hitting someone who can (ostensibly) fight back or walk away.
________________ Yelling though? I think it matters what you yell. I do have a temper, and I do yell at people- but I don't use attacking words. Yelling "I'm furious!" is very different from yelling "You worthless shit".
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
romanylass, What is your method of discipline? Do you find that your children obey you adequately? Do they behave?
My question isn't meant to imply that non-spankers have rowdy children or vice versa. I'm just wondering what you do and how it works. I need ideas for when I have kids. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about scraped knees. Scraped knees, yes, they get then in the back yard.I'm talking about keeping them confined until they will know not to run into the street. That's the issue- people who defend spanking by saying "It's better to spank your kid for running into the street than to let them get hit by a car." I think it's way more humane to keep a kid in a stroller than hit them.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't find child restraints all that humane. I'm referring to the child leashes and things of that sort, which I'm afraid a four year old in a stroller would fall into.
Spanking is a way to get children to obey, and it's one of many. But more specifically, it's negative reinforcement for when they don't obey. You still have to have some method of discipline (Katarain's question above)?
Wouldn't that method be effective when in public, too?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With younger kids, redirection or time out. As they get older, infractions earn time out in their room, restrictions, extra chores, or the ultimate, lines. (ex., "I will not call my sister names" 10X.)When we don't manage to prevent dangerous situations, we shout "danger", and the kids know we mean it.
My kids are by no means perfect (My oldest is banned from any sweets today, which is real punishment the day after Halloween) but I have several friends who do spank, whose kids are no better behaved than mine. I'm not sure one or the other produces better results, or more obedient kids. In any case, I would ahte my kids to be obedient to my because they're afraid of me.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
El, are you saying it's more humane to hit a child than to have them ride in a stroller? If a toddler hates the stroller and fights, yes, then look for another method.
If my kids disobey in public, I threaten one of the above. If we are somewhere they want to be, or planning to buy them somnething they want, that's usually a good incentive. (I don't usually plan a bribe purchase just to get them to behave though, unless I really must go somewhere, before their dad comes home, and they're grouchy already).
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could nolt have kept Liam in a stroller at age 11 months unless I used duct tape. As SIGNIFICANT amount of duct tape (which I never actually used, but contemplated on more than one occassion.He was too young to understand incentives and too clever to keep hold of with complicated safety devices. The longest it ever took him to figure out a child-proof device was a day and a half. That was a refrigerator lock.
Liam didn't hate the stroller, but if we went one way and he wanted to go te other, he would ditch us like a bad date. Little sucker was fast, too.
The end result was that I never took the kids out anywhere unless I had my husband with me. That way, if Liam got loose and bolted, one of us could catch him without leaving Robert standing by his brother's empty stroller.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Consistency is probably the most important aspect to any discipline plan. I learned that as a teacher.
I can't say I'm against spanking, but I also don't think that spanking should cause any damage or real pain. Maybe sting for a little while. I don't know if I'd use it or not. Other methods are more attractive.
Ever watch Desperate Housewives? One of the mothers doesn't believe in spanking either, but she threatens it ALL the time. Her kids just ignore the threats.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Liam was (and remains) essentially un-redirectable. He's very single-minded and self-motivated.
"Tubthumping" could be his theme song. I'm glad he's that way, especially now that he is old enough to understand whythings are a bad idea. However, I spent a significant part of his first four years just keeping Mr. Impulsive alive.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it depends on your definition of "humane". Spankings don't actually cause that much physical pain (at least, they're not supposed to). If you give me the choice now between a punch in the stomach or being handcuffed to my chair I take the punch every time.
Although I was like Liam as a child. The words "childproof" did not apply to me. And I disregarded every parental directive that I deemed unfair.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Livvie, Liam and my Livvie would make a pair. I STILL hold her hand most of the time. We did the tag teaming for a long time with her, too.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: I'm not talking about scraped knees. Scraped knees, yes, they get then in the back yard.I'm talking about keeping them confined until they will know not to run into the street. That's the issue- people who defend spanking by saying "It's better to spank your kid for running into the street than to let them get hit by a car." I think it's way more humane to keep a kid in a stroller than hit them.
That's fine, you are entitled to raise your children as you wish to...but calling spankings, preeoviding that is what they really are, abuse is incorrect IMO....and I have the same right you do, to raise MY children as I see fit.
I also feel it demeans the word abuse, which is a slap in the face to those who really were abused. Not that you intended it as such, but still....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only start yelling when someone else does first. At that point their emotional so they either eventually work out that yellings not going to get the anywhere and so stop, or else break down and cry. What I do next depends on the person but I don't think yelling is abusive, just a sign that someone is emo which is very easy to tease them over <grin>.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I was trained (for my former job with the government) that one should always speak more softly when a person raises his or her voice to you. It's calming. They have to be quiet to hear you. Plus, not getting riled up actually make you seem more secure. In a sense, it makes you seem more threatening, because you are not behaving in either a fearful way or an equal dominant display.
Sounds like hocum, but it works. I have subdued men twice my size, merely by following those rules.
Sorry for the OT post.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calmed them down by not reacting un a usual way when they stood up during the interview, shouting and looking for something to throw. Even had one guy pull a punch on me.
I'm proud of the fact that I never had to push the panic button, during my career. I was able to talk them all down. Only a few times did one ever insist on speaking to the 'man in charge' (who was actually a woman). The guy had issues with females, so we got a supervisor to sort of imply he was the boss of the office, and the guy eased up immediately.
Not to imply that I was not trained to, you know, hurt people, just that I was rather better at the head games. Plus, the only hand-to-hand thinga I really excelled at were the ones intended to maim. I was never any good at wristlocks. Good at breaking them, yes, but not great at making them stick.
I find physical violence distasteful, despite having a knack for it Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To take the discussion back to yelling for a moment, emotions are all valid, but expressing an emotion "at" someone may not be. That is, if you get angry and go outside and yell at the sky, that's perfectly okay. If you are angry and your body language conveys the fact, but your voice and demeanor are controlled, then that is not just okay but even far more effective than yelling. Just like Olivia said, being quiet is by far the better and more powerful course.
Yelling at someone in anger is an act of violence. It can be used defensively, for instance screaming when someone attacks, or warning a potential attacker to get back. But almost always when someone yells at someone else in anger, particularly someone physically smaller or weaker, they are being abusive.
The thing is, anger can be your master or your servant. If you are trying to bring about some positive change in your situation, anger can be a fuel that motivates you to go beyond your current paradigms and seek radical solutions. For instance, anger at your boss can prompt you to begin looking for a new job. When you are yelling in anger, though, you have become the servant of your anger, rather than the reverse. Yelling does not ever serve the cause of positive change. It only browbeats and bullies and threatens. It serves only in relationships that are based on power and coercion. In relationships built on love, trust, and freewill, on a willing and joyful bond between people that all parties are happy to maintain and strengthen, then yelling only acts to destroy.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate yelling. It often made me cry, and it always made me lose respect for the person who was yelling. Being a normal child, i.e. always looking for a way out of obedience, it also meant that the yeller had just given up moral authority and therefor no longer had to the right to tell me to do anything anyway. I just hate it. I don't hang around kids so I don't know if I would do it, but I hope not. I don't even like sharp voices. It kills trust.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I was trained (for my former job with the government) that one should always speak more softly when a person raises his or her voice to you. It's calming. They have to be quiet to hear you. Plus, not getting riled up actually make you seem more secure. In a sense, it makes you seem more threatening, because you are not behaving in either a fearful way or an equal dominant display.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
