posted
The only reason I nitpick about that is that I'm a quasi-pacifist, and I think the ONLY practical way for me to achieve that in my life without either hypocritically foisting my violence-dealing off onto someone else or being willing to completely sacrifice my other principles is to work as hard as I possibly can to predict and prevent situations which can only be satisfactorily resolved through violence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have spanked my child twice. I hated it both times. I really don't like doing anything that I know will make my daughter unhappy, but I felt it was necessary.
I understand and respect the idea that violence only begets violence, and in 99.9% of cases I discipline with firm words, time-outs, deprival of priveliges, and the like.
However... The first time I spanked my child, she had intentionally grabbed ahold of my hair and yanked during a temper tantrum; the second, she struck me repeatedly across the face as I was trying to explain to her why she shouldn't be doing what she was doing.
There comes a point when one recognizes that "We don't hit people because it's wrong and it hurts people and we wouldn't want other people to behave like that towards us and there are better ways to resolve our problems and feelings" may be, in an immediate sense, an idea that isn't going to penetrate. And until a state comes where the child *can* understand that, the parent may have to settle for "We don't hit people because it isn't some kind of rule preventing bigger people from hitting back, it's forbearance."
I suppose the most important thing is never to discipline, especially using corporal punishment, out of mere anger. And it's easy to judge other people's parenting from a distance; I've seen both parents who were so frustratingly controlling that I had to restrain myself from comment (do you have to dictate what your nine-year-old is doing every moment they're in a pizza restaurant?) and others that were so lax I worried for the child's safety, let alone their manners.
I guess it's a cliche to say it, but parenting is both more wonderful and more difficult than anyone could have explained to me. And to those [without children] who think they'd be perfect parents who would bring up perfect children who would tremendously respect their brand of firm-yet-fair discipline, I can only say... Have you ever tried to be completely consistent in anything for eighteen years? Can you be as patient and reasonable when you are running on four hours sleep and fighting the flu as when you've just come back from a relaxing weekend? Have you ever had something destroyed, patiently explained to its destroyer how it should be handled- and then had the replacement destroyed by the same person in the same manner?
Parents do the best they can. I think most of them, when you come down to it, do a pretty good job. It's something of a miracle.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you should really hit your kids, but it should definitley only be used when they do something physical, like hitting someone, or like sterling said, yanking down a chair in a temper tantrum.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Maybe I missed something on the second page, but I really don't think spanking falls into the "violence" category.
-pH
From a parent's point of view, no, I don't think it is, either. But a child- especially a young child- may understand that only in hindsight.
"If I hurt someone else, I may be hurt in return" may be the starting place. Hopefully, it will never be the ending place with regard to the child's own impressions of discipline. Since the goal is not to instill "I'm afraid to inflict violence on others", but "using violence to get what I want, or when I don't get what I want, is wrong."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you're saying. And I do think that corporal punishment can be useful. The thing is, we learn "right" and "wrong" sort of on a ladder, and doing right (or avoiding wrong) to avoid punishment or gain reward is the first rung of that ladder.
Plus, there are some kids who don't see being sent to their rooms as a punishment.
posted
Isn't discipline, by definition, doing something to the child which they don't like? Obviously you shouldn't beat your child, but beating is really just taking a spanking to a damaging extreme.
By the same measure, giving your child a time out, or grounding them is an acceptable punishment, but locking them in a closet all day is abusive.
I don't think it's a good idea to teach children violence as an answer to problems, but I think it's kind of arbitrary to say that spanking a child is wrong, because it hurts them, but punishing them some other way, hurting the child emotionally, is less damaging.
The point of a punishment is that the child doesn't like it, there's no such thing as a kind punishment.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two cents is that it doesn't make much sense for to me to hit a child in order to teach them to not hit.
*smack* "don't hit"?? Doesn't seem logical.
I subscribe to the one swat as a last resort but never when I'm at my wits end (which rarely happens) methodology myself. I love Parenting with Love and Logic by Jim Fay and Foster Cline. IIRC, they teach to only use swats in life threatening situations (running into the street and the like). They also teach that consequences should always be logical and related to real life. I would highly recommend their book /philosphy at least as a starting point.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitting them teaches them to hit. Time-out teaches them to kidnap people. Removing television or other toys teaches them to steal things. Witholding dessert teaches them to steal food.
Needless to say, I don't agree. Or at least, I don't think it's quite that simple. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think spanking is the same as hitting, either. Like I said, spanking a child is not the same as socking him/her in the jaw.
I guess when I think of a swat, I think of an open handed "hit" on the bum. How do you define it?
(FWIW, if I were to think of a "hit" in a general context, I would think of it the way you described pH but I also view a spanking as a type of hitting)
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think spanking is the same as hitting, either. Like I said, spanking a child is not the same as socking him/her in the jaw.
I guess when I think of a swat, I think of an open handed "hit" on the bum. How do you define it?
(FWIW, if I were to think of a "hit" in a general context, I would think of it the way you described pH but I also view a spanking as a type of hitting)
Yeah, I see it more as a "swat." But I feel like words like "hitting" have too much of a malicious connotation, just like "violence."
posted
Jim-Me, you know, I can see your point. I guess in my mind it's like saying, "don't smoke" and lighting up at the same time.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you know, if you think of it that way, then how do you account for the prison system? Like, you hold someone against his/her will and are convicted and sent to jail...where you are held against your will.
posted
Hmmm. To be honest, I hadn't thought of that pH.
I just try to base consequences for my children on logical consequences that are real life. Getting hit (when you hit) is a real life consequence, as is going to jail if you hold someone against their will. I guess I choose to take a different "logical" stance in the consequence department. (Notice I did say things such as, "My two cents" and "in my mind".)
When I was young I bit my aunt's finger. She bit me back. I just think there are other ways (that I choose) to teach my young children. I am not trying to say that my way is the only way, just that it's one way and I try not to choose corporal punnishment when I can think of another effective way to teach the same principle.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't think spanking falls into the "violence" category.
Huh. I guess there are quite a few people who have a much more narrow definition of the word "violence" than how I understand the word.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sweetbaboo, I am also a fan of Love&Logic (and Jim Fay -- less so of Foster Kline, whose "holding therapy" techniques are so controversial). However, I consider their methods part of my "bag of tricks," and not the whole of it.
(My kids are good and sick of, "What were the choices" and "That is so sad!" )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: Jim-Me, you know, I can see your point. I guess in my mind it's like saying, "don't smoke" and lighting up at the same time.
My parents sometimes said, "I'm an adult, so I get to do this. You're my child, so you get to do what I say." It didn't seem fair at the time, but life isn't fair. As an adult, it makes perfect sense to me. My parents had wine with dinner, and I didn't get any. My parents drove a car and I couldn't. My parents got to spank me when I threw a shoe at my little brother.
I think you can teach valuable lessons to a child without having to act the way you expect the child to act. You should set a good example, but discipline is discipline. It isn't an example of how to act, it's a consequence that the child receives when they don't act as they should.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed MightyCow. The life of an adult and the life of a child are different. Wherever possible, I personally choose to live in a way and by the rules that I expect my children to live. Especially in discipline I try to be treated the way I would prefer to be treated, which is with dignity and as fairly/consistently as possible. I'm not perfect as an adult and I still have many consequences/times that I learn things in a diffcult manner...being corrected isn't usually a "fun" thing for anyone.
I'm not saying that a swat/spank isn't needed once in awhile. I'm saying, that's my parenting philosophy and it works for me (most of the time )
Rivka, I haven't ventured out into Cline's stuff so much (and I don't think that I will). I got really into Love and Logic with my oldest and have just continued with it through the rest. My "middle child" is giving me fits and I was thinking that it's time to pull that book out again. Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, for me, spanking was never, ever painful. I was spanked as a child, but never hard enough to hurt me. It was the humiliation that was the punishment, not the pain.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:...when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve...
This is generally-I'd say virtually always-impossible in the long-run without, as Icarus points out, someone else doing the violence for you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve; or when you have no particular resolve.
That said, you'd have to be a pretty amazing parent to manage the third option all the time, and the FOURTH option pretty much sticks you right in the "lousy parent" category.
Rakeesh, I think you do Tom a disservice by leaving out the fullness of his quote.
Managing the third is possible when you are soley and merely responsible for yourself. It is not the pacifist's responsibility to keep others from fighting, merely to avoid the fight, avoid being the cause of the fight, and avoid situations where things they *would* fight for are threatened (I hope that doesn't come off as snark, because I am being sincere).
As Tom points out, parenting brings a wrench into the mix. It does so by your becoming at least partially responsible for events you cannot control... namely the actions and attitudes of your children.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I can't help but wonder if Godwin was a pacifist. Hitler really is the ultimate and definitive answer to the idea that no one should have to fight and that *your* reason has failed if you are fighting.
That's why I chose the generic "psychopath" in my first post. There was a Salon article about Columbine and either Harris or Klebold's diary entries (I forget which one). The kid in question was positively crowing about how badly he had duped everyone into thinking he was caring, and even pentitent at times, but that he really wanted to kill them all. You cannot deal with someone like that peacefully unless you think not using violence, personally, is more important than not only your own life, but the lives of *all* others who are threatened.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok... one more.. (can you tell this is something I care about?)
I just figured out a good way to state what really bothers me about intense pacifism. It denies victimhood. Someone earlier said that "all violence was a failure of reason" and someone else correctly responded that it wasn't necessarily a failure on the part of both parties.
But it goes deeper than that. Tom, I applaud you for taking the effort to avoid placing yourself in a situation that requires a violent response. That is a wise, good, and sound way to conduct yourself. If everyone did it, then there would be no violence.
The problem with true pacifism is precisely what Rakeesh pointed out (I didn't mean to entirely disagree with you, there). At some level, there are things beyond your control that can place you in a situation where violence is the only response. Going back to United 93, those people did NOT fail in any way to be brought to where they were. They did NOTHING to bring that fate upon themselves. But a true, thorough pacifist is in the unenviable position of having to say what they did was wrong. That they failed somehow because they were forced to fight, not for their lives, but for the lives of others. If you can't find fault with their actions (and I put forth to you that you can't) then you cannot say, universally, that violence is always wrong.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always swore up and down that I would never spank my child. (I was spanked only for breaking safety rules, only by one parent, and I remember each instance. Yes, it worked for me; I stopped doing those things. It did not work on my brother.)
However, there has now been an instance where my almost-2.5-year-old child, in a temper tantrum, repeatedly kicked, smacked, and finally, when restrained, bit me, and nothing else worked to stop her. Finally, I said, "If you do not stop hurting Mommy, Mommy is going to spank you so you know what it feels like to be hurt by someone. 1. 2, stop now. 3." And I gave her a fairly gentle spank on the bum. The screaming continued, but the hurting me stopped. And it was enough to shock her into listening to me and to get her into her calm-down routine.
So yes, I now think it's a reasonable choice as a last resort in some circumstances.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:While you are coming up with your plan, make sure to cover what to do when your child:
- Takes all the eggs out of the fridge and smashes them on the floor. Let's make the child 15 months for this one.
The child should be required to clean up as much of the mess as he can. It might be useful to show him the brownie mix that you can't use to make him any brownies because you have no eggs.
quote: Uses a marshmallow from Lucky Charms to make a fake tooth to tape on a note to the Tooth Fairy, asking for a dollar. The child is, oh, seven.
Leave a fake dollar under his pillow with a note from the Tooth Fairy: "I'm not that stupid."
quote: Eats the recipe in home ec. I don't mean the food. I mean the paper recipe. The kid is eleven.
Some form of classroom humiliation is called for. Definitely don't let him use any cooking implements, as he has shown that he is not mature enough to handle them. Require him to participate in the activity without his recipe, then give him a terrible grade.
quote: Tells the Sunday School teacher that she used to have a brother named Tommy, but he was murdered. There was no such sibling, but the teacher believes the kid. The kid is five.
When you have the kid alone, start talking about Tommy as if he were real and really had been murdered. Talk about how sad you are that he was killed and how much you miss him, since he was such a good kid. This will probably freak her out, since she knows she made Tommy up.
quote: Makes up words that are not swears -- mothermucker and bodgammit -- and uses them at dinner with your spouse's parents. "Whaaaaat? They are not swears!" The child is nine.
Explain that making up fake swear words is an equivalent offense to using actual ones, since the effect is still to shock people. Punishment should probably be some form of social ostracism.
quote:Also, be sure to cover what you do when five dollars is missing from the kitchen table but neither of your two children has any idea where it went. Big honest eyes here. What do you do the second and third time this event occurs?
Think of a way to catch whoever is doing it. Until you've caught the thief, don't leave money lying around.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
If I've done Tom a disservice by segmenting his sentence, I apologize. To clarify, I was again speaking about pacifism in general and not as it applies to parenting in particular.
For example, I believe that the idea that pacifism can work for an individual if they sufficiently arrange their lives to the point where violence will be unnecessary, is nearly always impossible unless they live that life in a society who does the violence on their behalf when necessary (or, for those who think it's not necessary, "do violence on their behalf sometimes").
Pacifism generally does not work, for example, if you live in a society with zero protection from any predators aside from one's self. Not unless all of those other people are also predators, or one is willing to acquiesce whenever force is applied against them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
All I meant was that Tom's complete thought, as well as his follow up post, seemed to cede your point...
I didn't mean a disservice as in "causing offence" but as in "overlooking the fact that I don't think he'd argue with you." No worries, bud. As I later posted, you did hit the problem with pacifism squarely on the head.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
