yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....
as Powerdoc rightly pointed out, once that is associated properly in the child's mind, the threat itself is plenty.
I'm not sure I see why threatening violence is so much better than violence. Surely the child is still learning that violence is an effective control technique to be used to ensure the compliance of people who are smaller than you.
I think you guys just don't know any better. That's how you were raised-- you were socialized into accepting smacking your kids around when they act up-- and now as parents that's how you discipline your own kids. But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover. My parents were pretty strict in a lot of ways, as they quickly and consistently established their authority. They made it clear how they expected me to behave and punished any serious deviations from those expectations. It made me despise authority later on, as parents shouldn't quite wield as much control when the kids older, but there are alternatives to hitting. So please, make your kids hate authority.
One more thing about kids who bully other kids using physical force. Most of them are cowards at heart. The absolute best thing to stop that behavior is that the other kid retaliates immediately and decisively.
This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.
But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically.
This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.
First, that self confidence needed to 'simply stand up for yourself' doesn't come from a void. If you are ready to fight, you automatically have that confidence - you are prepared for the extreme option, so anything in between is easier.
Second, the bully can be stupid enough not to sense your resolve, or think you're faking and carry on. Then you should hurt them. No amount of assertiveness and self confidence alone will stop you from taking a beating at that point. Only action will.
But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically.
On the contrary, as I wrote in the first post, this deters most bullies because they are looking for a victim, not a fight. If you fight for real, even if you lose, there will rarely be a second fight. A kid putting up a serious fight is just too much trouble to hassle.
To a large degree, it also stops the bullies from moving on to other kids. The more secure a kid feels, the easier it is for him to defend others and to voice disapproval of said bullying, without being suppressed by threat from the bullies. Bullies are a minority, good kids are a majority.
yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....
It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.
It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.
Nick
We are doing the same thing.
Shawn J : education depends of the kids. Some kids will obey naturally, and you the classical punitions will work fine for them. Others will react differently. Now, to be clear, I do not spend hours threatening my kids. Most of the time, some explanations works, but sometimes child test you.
When you will be a parent, you will discover by yourself what work with your kids. I don't think there is an unique recepie.
But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover.
Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.
But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.
Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.
Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?
Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.
But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.
Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.
Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?
Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong. Your childs are not your patients. Childs do not want perfects parents, they want parents who love them, and who guide them.
My childs know that I may give them a small tap if I am very angry, but they also know, that I will never hurt them seriously and that I love them. I don't think that a small tap per year will kill them. There is much more violence between my two daughters, than between US (the parents) and them.
I don't pretend to be a role model parent, but I think that parents must be naturals. Parents must show their good and bad sides to their childs. I have absolutely no taste for authoritie, but raising kids obliged me to do it. Some parents have a natural authoritie, and make the childs obey easily. Others aren't.
Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration.
I think you guys just don't know any better. That's how you were raised-- you were socialized into accepting smacking your kids around when they act up-- and now as parents that's how you discipline your own kids. But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover. My parents were pretty strict in a lot of ways, as they quickly and consistently established their authority. They made it clear how they expected me to behave and punished any serious deviations from those expectations. It made me despise authority later on, as parents shouldn't quite wield as much control when the kids older, but there are alternatives to hitting. So please, make your kids hate authority.
I disagree. Obviously as a teacher I use no corporal punishment. However the reality is that often, the result is less than impressive. There still exists a large lack of performance. I can get a child to stop an action in some scenarios, but truthfully that is about it. Stopping does not mean they have altered any future decision making, or that they now hold a different view regarding their unacceptable actions. Schools just end up kicking kids out of school, referring them to ridiculously expensive special education classes (growing at record rates), dispensing medicines they helped refer the parent to get, or calling the police at ridiculously young ages since the police are less likely to get in trouble for laying hands on a child who can show no desire to control themselves. Do any research in these areas and you will see the massive, and explosive growth of medications, special education, and scenarios where younger are handled by the police.
I do not spank my child to avoid being thought of as a push over. I spank the child because fear of the spanking is something they can understand and there are scenarios where they cannot understand what it is they SHOULD fear. How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later)
Now I meet plenty of parents that deal with said scenarios by basically caging their child. Every plug has a cover, every door handle a cover, everything triple locked, and they pretty much don't allow them outside. I find that a totally unacceptable solution for a number of reasons. One, it might work for their children, but my children handled all these "kidproof" items with frightening quickness.
They cracked all the knobcovers off the door. They watched anyone pull any one of the plug covers off just one time and had it solved. As I mentioned previously a five foot tall pool latch is mearly another problem to be solved. My youngest son won't accept "fake"(about ten bad dups given to us on a ring from the local locksmith) car keys because he truthfully already knows which key on which keychain will start each and every car. He will find a way to get them off the five feet from the ground key ring, go out back and attempt to start the car after unlocking the door with the proper key. Did I mention he was doing this while being two?
The second reason is simply put that a home shouldn't feel like a prison. Never letting a child outside, walking them on a leash like I see some parents do, drugging them, etc no more internalizes any sort of learning than spanking does. I also find many of those scenarios much more humiliating and abusive than a tap or two on the bum. Also I can't imagine scenarios where you spank a child much past say, seven or eight (of course my oldest is only five) because the reasoning and understanding at that point are pretty strong and hopefully the patterns, practices and habits you have done with your child have a good hold, some deep roots.
How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later)
In my experience (I also have a 5 year-old and also a 1-year-old) you do have to keep your toddler out of danger through your own vigilance. I can't believe a toddler is going to fear a spanking when that ball rolls into the street. They're going to run after it because they're caught up in the moment and just don't have the cognitive ability to think about consequences. If they can't think about the car, why would they be able to think about the spanking? That's why, up to a certain age (say, age 3) I think you just have to watch them to make sure they don't get hurt. You have to do whatever it takes to keep the poisonous stuff out of their reach. You have to make sure they don't stick their hand on the stove. Then at a certain point, they can understand and learn what's dangerous.
Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.
Quote:
Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration.
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.
2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship.
There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
Actually it isn't an inconsistancy. In the period you talk about, women were not considered equals of the man. It was not one equal with full rights hitting another equal with full rights. The law declared that a man had to assume responsibility for his wife. Under the law the woman was no different than a child.
The change has not been in our views toward spanking but in the woman's legal status. She is now an equal with the man and the man has no responsibility to insure her behavior.
As an aside you do know that women are the largest percentage of child abusers in the United States.
Now there are those that argue that children should have many more rights than they do now as well. Some even argue that children ought to have the right to vote since it seems they are often disenfranchised by not being a voting block. It will be interesting to see how this resolves in the future.
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
Actually what many members of "your side" of the debate don't seem to understand is that the people who argue about internalization of learning would still find you at fault for using many of the methods you endorse. Extrinsic rewards are considered harmful to the thinking of a child and their decision making ability. Heck they are probably the root cause of societal harm according to good socialists like yourself. You don't study and get good grades because Mom or Dad are going to give you twenty dollars per "A", you do so for nothing more than the joy of learning. In fact there are many that argue that when you give extrinsic rewards for matters that should be intrinsic, you are doing serious harm because you warp the development of those intrinsic values and you also reduce the interest in the intrinsic values.
Shouldn't a child clean their room because of the personal joy they feel with the satisfaction of completing said task and also because staying in a clean room is much more satisfying than living in a messy room?
We may have discovered the basis for your entire belief system. Maybe your politics are just a form of rebellion against the extreme controlling you complained about from your parents that they exercised via extrinsic controls. The only option of gaining your own control in these matters would be to be willing to begin forgoing and decrying those extrinsic rewards. (I'm going to simply not desire that fifty dollars being offered.) It would explain a lot of your actions and why you don't understand that those of us not raised that way don't need the same sort of rebellion to gain our control.
You keep claiming it is about how we were raised. I think it could be much more about how you were raised. Loathing of material items is very common among children of well-off parents who use said items to control their children. Perhaps it is you who are the damaged goods. (That tongue is firmly in cheek, or in your ear if you prefer)
Please realize that the only form of child raising "endorsed" by the experts that condemn spanking is what Powerdoc has spoken about. Tonton and yourself have brought up other matters that, while they are not spanking, are considered harmful as well. Anything that detracts from internalization of learning and the development of intrinsic values is considered harmful and possibly abusive. Only BRussell has been most consistant in this matter and rightly so since he likely has the deepest understanding. He should speak up a bit more on the matters you and Ton have brought up as well too.
Nick
EDIT: Before we get into an argument about whether you were talking about extrinsic rewards you did say they had to be "tangible" which according to every definition I have ever read means outside oneself in roughly 99% of instances.
Tangible
1. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
2. Possible to touch.
3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
4. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
5. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
Well, you will see in the future, what kind of parent you are. And I don't hit kids, I gived some taps on their buts from time to time. I am not a violent person, and I only fight twice in my whole existence.
I think that promoting a law forbidenning taps are wrong. I know many friends who love their childs who give some while their childs where young. What you say is true for older kids, I did not hit my elder daughter since she is 7, because she is old enough to understand others forms of punishment (punitions have to be immediate with very young childs).
Now, we will see how will work your big principles at the light of the reality. I think that more than 95 % of the parents gave a tap to their kids from time to time. I rather prefer a tap, than being emprisonned in a dark room. My worst souvenir as a child is when my father locked me in the dark toilet (in fact it was not locked, but I was too efraid to go out).
1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.
2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship.
1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents. Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.
2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.
1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents. Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.
2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.
1) Dolto made some importants psychologic research with kids. The problem, is that many parents in France, refer to her work like a sort of bible. There is great idears inside, she was the first to speak of the rights of children. Unfornately too many people following her teaching have becomed pushover parents.
2) glad to hear that. However the last time I did a tap on the butt to a woman, her husband send me a fist in my face, and I loose all my front teeths. Thanks to my dentist I am still able to do that :
Comments
yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....
Originally posted by midwinter
as Powerdoc rightly pointed out, once that is associated properly in the child's mind, the threat itself is plenty.
I'm not sure I see why threatening violence is so much better than violence. Surely the child is still learning that violence is an effective control technique to be used to ensure the compliance of people who are smaller than you.
Originally posted by Gon
One more thing about kids who bully other kids using physical force. Most of them are cowards at heart. The absolute best thing to stop that behavior is that the other kid retaliates immediately and decisively.
This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.
But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.
First, that self confidence needed to 'simply stand up for yourself' doesn't come from a void. If you are ready to fight, you automatically have that confidence - you are prepared for the extreme option, so anything in between is easier.
Second, the bully can be stupid enough not to sense your resolve, or think you're faking and carry on. Then you should hurt them. No amount of assertiveness and self confidence alone will stop you from taking a beating at that point. Only action will.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically.
On the contrary, as I wrote in the first post, this deters most bullies because they are looking for a victim, not a fight. If you fight for real, even if you lose, there will rarely be a second fight. A kid putting up a serious fight is just too much trouble to hassle.
To a large degree, it also stops the bullies from moving on to other kids. The more secure a kid feels, the easier it is for him to defend others and to voice disapproval of said bullying, without being suppressed by threat from the bullies. Bullies are a minority, good kids are a majority.
Originally posted by midwinter
Powerdoc:
yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....
It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.
Nick
We are doing the same thing.
Shawn J : education depends of the kids. Some kids will obey naturally, and you the classical punitions will work fine for them. Others will react differently. Now, to be clear, I do not spend hours threatening my kids. Most of the time, some explanations works, but sometimes child test you.
When you will be a parent, you will discover by yourself what work with your kids. I don't think there is an unique recepie.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover.
Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.
But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.
Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.
Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?
Originally posted by BRussell
Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.
But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.
Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.
Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?
Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong. Your childs are not your patients. Childs do not want perfects parents, they want parents who love them, and who guide them.
My childs know that I may give them a small tap if I am very angry, but they also know, that I will never hurt them seriously and that I love them. I don't think that a small tap per year will kill them. There is much more violence between my two daughters, than between US (the parents) and them.
I don't pretend to be a role model parent, but I think that parents must be naturals. Parents must show their good and bad sides to their childs. I have absolutely no taste for authoritie, but raising kids obliged me to do it. Some parents have a natural authoritie, and make the childs obey easily. Others aren't.
Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think you guys just don't know any better. That's how you were raised-- you were socialized into accepting smacking your kids around when they act up-- and now as parents that's how you discipline your own kids. But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover. My parents were pretty strict in a lot of ways, as they quickly and consistently established their authority. They made it clear how they expected me to behave and punished any serious deviations from those expectations. It made me despise authority later on, as parents shouldn't quite wield as much control when the kids older, but there are alternatives to hitting. So please, make your kids hate authority.
I disagree. Obviously as a teacher I use no corporal punishment. However the reality is that often, the result is less than impressive. There still exists a large lack of performance. I can get a child to stop an action in some scenarios, but truthfully that is about it. Stopping does not mean they have altered any future decision making, or that they now hold a different view regarding their unacceptable actions. Schools just end up kicking kids out of school, referring them to ridiculously expensive special education classes (growing at record rates), dispensing medicines they helped refer the parent to get, or calling the police at ridiculously young ages since the police are less likely to get in trouble for laying hands on a child who can show no desire to control themselves. Do any research in these areas and you will see the massive, and explosive growth of medications, special education, and scenarios where younger are handled by the police.
I do not spank my child to avoid being thought of as a push over. I spank the child because fear of the spanking is something they can understand and there are scenarios where they cannot understand what it is they SHOULD fear. How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later)
Now I meet plenty of parents that deal with said scenarios by basically caging their child. Every plug has a cover, every door handle a cover, everything triple locked, and they pretty much don't allow them outside. I find that a totally unacceptable solution for a number of reasons. One, it might work for their children, but my children handled all these "kidproof" items with frightening quickness.
They cracked all the knobcovers off the door. They watched anyone pull any one of the plug covers off just one time and had it solved. As I mentioned previously a five foot tall pool latch is mearly another problem to be solved. My youngest son won't accept "fake"(about ten bad dups given to us on a ring from the local locksmith) car keys because he truthfully already knows which key on which keychain will start each and every car. He will find a way to get them off the five feet from the ground key ring, go out back and attempt to start the car after unlocking the door with the proper key. Did I mention he was doing this while being two?
The second reason is simply put that a home shouldn't feel like a prison. Never letting a child outside, walking them on a leash like I see some parents do, drugging them, etc no more internalizes any sort of learning than spanking does. I also find many of those scenarios much more humiliating and abusive than a tap or two on the bum. Also I can't imagine scenarios where you spank a child much past say, seven or eight (of course my oldest is only five) because the reasoning and understanding at that point are pretty strong and hopefully the patterns, practices and habits you have done with your child have a good hold, some deep roots.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later)
In my experience (I also have a 5 year-old and also a 1-year-old) you do have to keep your toddler out of danger through your own vigilance. I can't believe a toddler is going to fear a spanking when that ball rolls into the street. They're going to run after it because they're caught up in the moment and just don't have the cognitive ability to think about consequences. If they can't think about the car, why would they be able to think about the spanking? That's why, up to a certain age (say, age 3) I think you just have to watch them to make sure they don't get hurt. You have to do whatever it takes to keep the poisonous stuff out of their reach. You have to make sure they don't stick their hand on the stove. Then at a certain point, they can understand and learn what's dangerous.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.
Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration.
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.
2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
Originally posted by BRussell
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?
Actually it isn't an inconsistancy. In the period you talk about, women were not considered equals of the man. It was not one equal with full rights hitting another equal with full rights. The law declared that a man had to assume responsibility for his wife. Under the law the woman was no different than a child.
The change has not been in our views toward spanking but in the woman's legal status. She is now an equal with the man and the man has no responsibility to insure her behavior.
As an aside you do know that women are the largest percentage of child abusers in the United States.
Now there are those that argue that children should have many more rights than they do now as well. Some even argue that children ought to have the right to vote since it seems they are often disenfranchised by not being a voting block. It will be interesting to see how this resolves in the future.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
Actually what many members of "your side" of the debate don't seem to understand is that the people who argue about internalization of learning would still find you at fault for using many of the methods you endorse. Extrinsic rewards are considered harmful to the thinking of a child and their decision making ability. Heck they are probably the root cause of societal harm according to good socialists like yourself. You don't study and get good grades because Mom or Dad are going to give you twenty dollars per "A", you do so for nothing more than the joy of learning. In fact there are many that argue that when you give extrinsic rewards for matters that should be intrinsic, you are doing serious harm because you warp the development of those intrinsic values and you also reduce the interest in the intrinsic values.
Shouldn't a child clean their room because of the personal joy they feel with the satisfaction of completing said task and also because staying in a clean room is much more satisfying than living in a messy room?
We may have discovered the basis for your entire belief system. Maybe your politics are just a form of rebellion against the extreme controlling you complained about from your parents that they exercised via extrinsic controls. The only option of gaining your own control in these matters would be to be willing to begin forgoing and decrying those extrinsic rewards. (I'm going to simply not desire that fifty dollars being offered.) It would explain a lot of your actions and why you don't understand that those of us not raised that way don't need the same sort of rebellion to gain our control.
You keep claiming it is about how we were raised. I think it could be much more about how you were raised. Loathing of material items is very common among children of well-off parents who use said items to control their children. Perhaps it is you who are the damaged goods.
Please realize that the only form of child raising "endorsed" by the experts that condemn spanking is what Powerdoc has spoken about. Tonton and yourself have brought up other matters that, while they are not spanking, are considered harmful as well. Anything that detracts from internalization of learning and the development of intrinsic values is considered harmful and possibly abusive. Only BRussell has been most consistant in this matter and rightly so since he likely has the deepest understanding. He should speak up a bit more on the matters you and Ton have brought up as well too.
Nick
EDIT: Before we get into an argument about whether you were talking about extrinsic rewards you did say they had to be "tangible" which according to every definition I have ever read means outside oneself in roughly 99% of instances.
Tangible
1. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
2. Possible to touch.
3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
4. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
5. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:
It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)
Well, you will see in the future, what kind of parent you are. And I don't hit kids, I gived some taps on their buts from time to time. I am not a violent person, and I only fight twice in my whole existence.
I think that promoting a law forbidenning taps are wrong. I know many friends who love their childs who give some while their childs where young. What you say is true for older kids, I did not hit my elder daughter since she is 7, because she is old enough to understand others forms of punishment (punitions have to be immediate with very young childs).
Now, we will see how will work your big principles at the light of the reality. I think that more than 95 % of the parents gave a tap to their kids from time to time. I rather prefer a tap, than being emprisonned in a dark room. My worst souvenir as a child is when my father locked me in the dark toilet (in fact it was not locked, but I was too efraid to go out).
Originally posted by Powerdoc
1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.
2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship.
1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents. Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.
2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.
Originally posted by BRussell
1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents. Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.
2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.
1) Dolto made some importants psychologic research with kids. The problem, is that many parents in France, refer to her work like a sort of bible. There is great idears inside, she was the first to speak of the rights of children. Unfornately too many people following her teaching have becomed pushover parents.
2) glad to hear that. However the last time I did a tap on the butt to a woman, her husband send me a fist in my face, and I loose all my front teeths. Thanks to my dentist I am still able to do that :