Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: texace on July 02, 2001, 09:46:00 PM
-
This is old, I found the story in an old newspaper. (1997) I don't want to type the whole thing, but I'll summerize it.
June 18, 1997 Laredo, Texas
Woman Jailed for Child Abuse
Basically here's what happened. A child, 8 I believe, was playing with one of his friends in his front yard, his mother watching out the picture window. The little boy then hit his friend, knocking him to the ground and making him cry. The mother storms out of the house with a belt, whips the child 4 times, then sends him to his room, telling the friend to go home.
Now here's the kicker, a neighbor watering her lawn across the street saw this, and immediately called the police, and CPS. When they arrived, the neighbor accuse the mother of beating her child in broad daylight. The mother tried to explain she was disiplning her child, but to no avail. She was taken to court, and convicted of child abuse. She spent 2 weeks in jail (I think, not sure) and paid a fine.
How hokey is this? A parent goes to jail for spanking a child. This was 4 years ago, think about how it is now. I don't know about you, but I would have slapped the neighbor and told her to bug off.
<G> That's the way I was raised. My dad whipped me when I was little, and it does straighten kids up. But with the hokey laws out now, I don't think anyone can spank children anymore....
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: texace ]
-
Corporal punishment is not the answer. It is absolutely not the be all end all solution to effective parenting.
Sure... I got whipped as a child also. I think we all turned out okay but I don't beat my children and I think they are far better behaved than my brother's kids. He whips his. Sure... I started out using corporal punishment. At first, it was simply to enforce fear in life-threatening situations such as running in the street or playing with light sockets. Later, I found that beating my kids didn't teach them as much as it allowed me to vent my own frustration. When I realized that, I stopped hitting my kids and you know what? They are turning out fine. They have no respect issues. They listen to their teachers. They don't fight at school and they behave in public.
If you have discipline problems, beating your kids won't make 'em better. Face it... if you whip your kids, it might not be phyical abuse, maybe just a parental swat but you are closer to abuse than a parent that does not use corporal punishment. "Gee, officer, I just meant to make him sit down. I don't know how it could have possibly dislocated his shoulder. yadda yadda yadda."
I see beating children as a weakness and a loss of control, especially when applied in public. Until one can master his or her own emotions, ineffective parenting and mis-behaved children are the result.
That applies to verbal abuse as well.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
i am glad my parents and teachers used corporal punishment and plan to continue the tradition regardless. period.
-
Hitting kids? Or Punching Kids?
Spanking is the indeed right of parent of a spoiled brat. A few spanks and slaps on the butt make a child know they have to respect others. Abuse I do not stand for and so should any other American !!!
null (http://null)
-
Spanking should be done within the private envoirement of the parent and offspring. 'Whipping' is plain cruel.
-
When kids are not raised with a little spank now and then, they grow up to become a NathBDP
-
Wrong Animal.
None of the kids in my family have ever been spanked. So far, we got my oldest brother who's got an Ma in math and physics and is a great father of three, my second older bro who's almost done with his Ma in computer science and my sis who's nearing the completion of her med studies.
And me, who's the black sheep of the family but still is a rather nice, if incredibly lazy, person :).
Showing a corrleation between not spanking and bad behaving kid will be quite hard, as will the opposite. There are many more variables involved in rearing a child.
It's clear that one can raise a good kid without the need of spanking. I was pretty horrible from time to time and did some amazingly stupid stunts, but my parents took the time to *talk* to me, and didn't choose the simple solution of a quick spanking, as if that'd teach me anything other than "might is right".
If "might is right" is the absolute base on which a parents authority is based, I say that speaks volumes about parenting skill.
You abuse a grown up - you go to jail. You abuse a kid - you go to jail. Treating the more defenseless differently and protecting them less against abuse is nonsensical to me.
Corporal punishment has been against the law for some time here, giving kids equal protection to adults in this sense.
Being the father or mother of a child does not give you privileges to hit it. instead one should consider how one would react if a) someone else did it to your child - some stranger or b) if someone bent you over their knees and started whooping your ass, how would you react?
Be consequent. Be decisive. Avoid the hypocritical approach.
-
Santa... think I'm making a habit of agreeing with you. :)
Oh... and spank, beat, whip, swat, hit, slap, whoop... I use the terms interchangeably. For some I guess these define the severity of the strike. I guess the difference is relative to the sting of your own hand.
I don't believe that corporal punishment in and of itself instills respect for parental authority. It instills fear of further spankings. It's not the same thing. If your kid doesn't respect you, no amount of beatings will change that.
How many of you actually have children? I have a 13 year old and a 10 year old.
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Sandman, I find your views highly agreeable as well :).
One thing that is VERY important to notice, and a thing that really I didn't get til my late teens is that there's a HUGE difference between RESPECT for a person or act and FEAR of the same.
Let me elucidate. It is about authority. According to the very non fine books I had to read about organisation theory, there are various forms authority can be based on, and there's also a difference between authority and being authoritarian.
A few examples on what authority can be based on: formal authority, i.e authority handed to someone by an organisation or group. This parents have by default.
Knowledge based authority, also something a parent SHOULD have :D.
Charisma is another form and so forth.
Authority can also be seen in two forms, a rational and an "inhibitual" one.
With the rational form, the leader controls in such a fashion that the receiver can be allowed to see the rational side and accepts the authoirity based not only on formal, but also on charisma and knowledge.
The other uses power and threats.
Now, a child is not rational. But a child does have the capacity to understand basic causality. Once the child has done something deemed naughty by the authority, the approach should be to use rational authority and supplement by inhibitual (wrong word, cannot come up with the English term).
And there are other threats than that of physical violence, which essentially teaches that authority based on threats and physical violence supercedes authority based on anything else.
I am not sure I would want to teach my kid that.
-
Alot of parents don't have a consequence planned for a given behaviour, so they fall back on physical violence. I think parents should have limits set and natural repercussions, that do not involve hitting thier child.
Hitting your child will get them to stop what their doing, but the only thing they learn is that violence is okay. Take the lady in the article. She beats her kid for beating another kid?? What hypocracy!
-
There is always a reason that CPS will take the child away, and not for simply spanking the kid.
~If the child shows previous or current 'marks' or 'deep bruises' from using a belt, then the child will be taken away.
Children do need discipline, but the amount you use, and when you use it is what determines the outcome of the unwanted behavior. Once the child gets to a certain age, physical punishment can be harmful to the development. Threat negotiation is much more effective, such as 'Your now grounded for pushing your friend to the ground, stay in your room the rest of the night. This week you have lost priveleges to the television'. 8 years old is alittle too old IMO to be using a belt on any child. There are much more effective ways to get desired behaviorial results, and it begins with positive re-inforcement when the child is behaving well, thats the best preventive medicine for unwanted behavior.
As I said, if CPS took the child away, you're not getting the whole story, I'm sure the child had deep bruises, or marks left from the belt, which is an indication the too much force was used.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
As I said, if CPS took the child away, you're not getting the whole story, I'm sure the child had deep bruises, or marks left from the belt, which is an indication the too much force was used.
Gotta disagree with you there Rip, I'd think they'd side on the side of caution given the neighbors complaint and fear of not doing anything in response to the complaint just in case something happened in the future and the CPS is viewed as incompetent. This parents mistake was not giving her child the belt, but doing so in the front yard.
Tis another issue in today's society, treating children as adults and thinking talking/reasoning with a child will produce a well displined child. Not the case for all, some yes but not most. Just raises another spoiled brat who has their parents wrapped around their little finger. Nothing wrong with physical punishment in moderation. Saves alot of time and verbal energy. A small child is like a puppy in many ways. Positive reinforcement & love along with proper corrective measures will raise them both properly in most cases.
-
Well said rip <S!>
-
I'm strongly against spanking kids... maybe a swat on the butt for a 3 year old putting something into an electrical outlet... or for running out into the street… but nothing more than that.
I think the Danes are enlightened on this issue, but I'm against making spankings against the law... beatings are already prohibited in the US. (And I'm against more laws and government intrusion in our lives.)
I just think using violence to "teach" your child, or punish your child is a mistake. It’s primitive. I totally reject the American sayings, “Spare the rod, spoil the child” and “Taught to the tune of a hickory stick.” I doubt that spanking is as effective as reasoning and non-violent sanctions to correct the behavior of a child. I'm fully aware that there are some kids who do not respond to reasoning, but there are kids who aren't fazed by whippings either. What do you do with a kid like that? Whip them harder? Kill them? I'm exaggerating my point, but I certainly don't think violence is the answer. I think that any “hitting” behavior in a child should be dealt with swiftly and surely, but obviously NOT with a spanking. Reasoning and non-violent sanctions are the answer, with particularly painful ones reserved for “hitting”. Some examples of sanctions are loss of privileges, extra chores, etc.
I think our jails are full of people that were taught violence by being spanked. I don't agree with all the folklore that extols the virtue of corporal punishment for kids.
Gunthr
---------------------------------------------
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentium 4's"
-
[q]A small child is like a puppy in many ways. Positive reinforcement & love along with proper corrective measures will raise them both properly in most cases.[/q]
LOL, Eagler! Yeah, I can visualize you hitting a 4 month old child on the head with a rolled up newspaper and rubbing "it's" nose in a poopy diaper!
-
be an interesting poll, those that were spanked as a child and those not, what they became as an adult - conservative or liberal. My guess is the majority of non spankies are our current day libs. Running this scenario out, I see the ratio of libs growing tremendously as the average parent in today's society doesn't seem to want to put forth the effort in disciplining their child correctly. Just go to any mall or restaurant to see the result...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
[q]A small child is like a puppy in many ways. Positive reinforcement & love along with proper corrective measures will raise them both properly in most cases.[/q]
LOL, Eagler! Yeah, I can visualize you hitting a 4 month old child on the head with a rolled up newspaper and rubbing "it's" nose in a poopy diaper!
I got the video if you want to see it :)
You know what I mean, an undisciplined child/adult is just as bad if not worse in some case as an over disciplined one
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
Ask any kid today. Taking away his/her Playstation for an extended period of time is a far worse punishment than a sore bottom. :D
-
Guys, you may have missed my point. Both punishment and positive re-inforcement are required. They go hand in hand. Spanking a child should be used in extreme conditions, but not on a day to day basis. My kids get a "Swat on the butt", which is a swift, sharp smack, just once, on the bottom, only after all other avenues have been exhausted, ie, time out, sent to room...then they get the swat. Without some form of physical punishment as an ends to a mean,you're just asking for more problems down the road. YOU must set the standard. If you don't the childs unwanted behavior WILL set the standard for you. However, as much as physical response is needed in unwanted behavior, positive re-inforcement is a MUST to PREVENT that behavior. Take the time to tell your child how proud you are of them for behaving so well at times such as, going out to a restaurant when they behave well, or sharing toys with a sibling, etc. Its like positive/negative current with electricity, one does not exist without the other. Its my opinion that spanking is okay, as a last resort to unwanted behavior. Its also my experience that one does not have to resort to spanking IF they use enough positive re-inforcement...but to say you'll never spank your kids is just inviting them to dictate to you what type of behavior you will have to put up with.
Again, beyond a certain age, say, 5, spanking is non-value added, and as mickey said, there are more effective options.
-
Today's behavior is a direct result of the anti-spanking crowd. We have more crime and anti-social behavior than at anytime in history.
Heck, some towns are being forced to disband little league ball teams due to the violence at the games amongst the spectators, mainly the parents. Sheesh.
-
I disagree Apache. What's biting us on the bellybutton is that we have ignored our children for the past 15 years. We've let them raise themselves. The problem isn't that we haven't spanked them. The problem is we haven't taken the time to raise them. In most families, both parents either work outside the home, or it is a single parent home. Young kids are farmed out, older ones are turned into latch key kids.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
I disagree Apache. What's biting us on the bellybutton is that we have ignored our children for the past 15 years. We've let them raise themselves. The problem isn't that we haven't spanked them. The problem is we haven't taken the time to raise them. In most families, both parents either work outside the home, or it is a single parent home. Young kids are farmed out, older ones are turned into latch key kids.
That ties in, your both right as the parent(s) when they return home from work does not want to be the "bad guy" and disipline their child when they warrant it. The guilt of latch keying or farming them out for materialistic gain plays into it also...
-
Originally posted by Apache:
Today's behavior is a direct result of the anti-spanking crowd. We have more crime and anti-social behavior than at anytime in history.
Heck, some towns are being forced to disband little league ball teams due to the violence at the games amongst the spectators, mainly the parents. Sheesh.
Really? I thought it was due to video games and movies. I mean that's what people say.
Actually, the parents in the stands of little league games are a bunch of moronic idiots who don't understand the value of little league in the first place. To think that your kid is out there to win is laughable at best. The kid is out there to HAVE FUN first and foremost. Then to learn about teamwork. Then to learn how to handle losing and winning. They are not there for the parents to say "my kid is better than yours."
Regardless I don't see how your statements are related. The parents that use physical violence in the stands at a baseball game, I would think, would be more prone to physical discipline of their children.
-
I think its a combination of BOTH lack of discipline and ignoring kids. The secret to parity is alittle of one, and alot of the other, ie, some discipline, lots of quality time spent together.
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
in all fairness, I think this discussion should be limited to those of us that have/are raising kids. To talk of child discipline without going through it, is like a man talking about women cross your heart bra discomfort. Other than StSanta, none of us are qualified to comment on that subject either :)
-
Originally posted by Apache:
Today's behavior is a direct result of the anti-spanking crowd. We have more crime and anti-social behavior than at anytime in history.
Heck, some towns are being forced to disband little league ball teams due to the violence at the games amongst the spectators, mainly the parents. Sheesh.
That's certainly the perception. Actually, violent crime continues the downward trend it has been on for a long time now. What's different is that we see more, partly in our entertainment and partly in increased coverage of events (thirty years ago you didn't see tapes of street violence in Bangkok on TV in the US).
As for the Sports Parent syndrome, that is far more due to the emphasis on winning (and for some dreamers, the vision of a child growing into some mega-money franchise) than it has on whether or not they were spanked.
My dad would, on very rare occasions, apply the hand. Usually a single swat on the butt. What that told me was that I had REALLY screwed up. I think if one can raise a child without striking it, its probably better. If corporal punishment is used, though, it has to be an exception to the norm - a real "attention getter". If it becomes expected or common it loses any disiplinary value and becomes just a way of the parent getting his/her own frustrations out. There's a thin line between "Pop is someone I respect" and "Pop is a bully".
- Yoj
-
Hehe Eagler, true.
That reminds me of my discipline, you see, my mom and dad say I was spanked, but frankly, I don't remember it...I do remember my father getting 'in my face' with gritted teeth, and verbally giving me some discipline (without 4 letter words) and that was enough to scare the be-jesus outta me...so, by that age, spanking was no longer needed, just the threat of one from dad was enough to get all 3 of us kids in line. Quality time was always present...I actually feel sorry for the rest of you, since the best father in the world belongs to me...respect is something you can't teach kids, its something that is earned thru years of companionship.
-
Beautifully said Yoj.
I might add, that my signature says it all, though it appears as 'fear', it is in reality 'respect'. Its a joke on the phrase itself, and what society today has become.
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
I disagree Apache. What's biting us on the bellybutton is that we have ignored our children for the past 15 years. We've let them raise themselves. The problem isn't that we haven't spanked them. The problem is we haven't taken the time to raise them. In most families, both parents either work outside the home, or it is a single parent home. Young kids are farmed out, older ones are turned into latch key kids.
woah there... Let's not go blaming everything on working parents! My mom has worked my entire living life, save for the maternity leave. I was "farmed out" as you said. I don't remember really early childhood, but once school started, I came home from school and I had a babysitter until Mom got home. During the summers, babysitters or I stayed with my grandmother (which is pretty much like staying with mom, though you do get away with more usually!) First babysitter I remember was a nice woman (who became a family friend and remained so well after she stopped sitting for me until she passed away). After that, babysitters were my mom's co-workers high school aged kids. I had 3 of them over time. Basically they watched after me while mom was at work until I got to 6th grade. After that I was a latchkey kid, tho mom would usually get home right after me then. During the summers after that, I was usually left by myself at home (only child, stepsiblings didn't live with us). I generally just played with the neighborhood kids, so I wasn't lonely or anything. Well, I turned out pretty alright, I think. A little messed up here and there, but who isn't??? ;)
Point is, Mom did the best she could when she was home, and she made damned sure that when she wasn't the person there kept me in line. The assertion Mom made was, if I messed up for the babysitters, Mom would make the punishment twice as bad as if it had been under Mom's "watch." So if it woulda merited a month of TV restriction, woulda been 2 months. ;) Needless to say, I was 99% angel with the babysitters! (also helped that 2 of them were HOT!! I loved having a pool!!! :D )
Anyways, working parents can still be effective parents. They just need to make sure that the person watching over their children is 100% responsible and trustworthy. I'm glad mom worked. She enjoys her job, and I'm happy me being born didn't take it away from her.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
in all fairness, I think this discussion should be limited to those of us that have/are raising kids. To talk of child discipline without going through it, is like a man talking about women cross your heart bra discomfort. Other than StSanta, none of us are qualified to comment on that subject either :)
I disagree. I may not have children, but... a) I was a child and remember how/why my parents disciplined me. I'm only 26, I'm not THAT far removed from my childhood. b) I might WANT to have children one day, so I SHOULD post my thoughts on the subject so if I'm totally screwed up, YOU can make my life (and the future kid's life!!) a little easier! ;)
-
Of course you all know I find this discourse extremely interesting. Look how many viewpoints we have on the issue of discipline vs. how many posters. Now imagine trying to establish a disciplinary policy that makes all of you happy.
Welcome to public education.
As for my own children (10 and 4), yes, I have spanked them, sparingly. When I do so I have exhausted other methods of discipline. I agree with those that say it should not be the first recourse, but strongly disagree with those that say it should never be done. My rule of thumb; I'll go for respect and understanding first, but once I am satisfied it won't work I will use whatever means necessary to bring about the desired change in behavior. It is my responsibility to control my children, not society's.
-
In keeping on track of the text in the original post, it seems to me that it is important to note that the woman hit her child with a belt four times in public.
Spanking with a belt and spanking with your hand are two completely different things imho. "Spanking" with an object other than your hand in public will always get people to look at you.
How many times have you seen a parent apply a spanking while waiting in line in a supermarket?
How many times have you seen a parent remove their belt and apply it four times in a supermarket?
Even so, there's got to be more to the story than just what was said. No mention was made of any marks found or exactly why they found the woman guilty of child abuse. I think it's important to know on what grounds she was jailed -- why did they find her guilty of child abuse?
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
I disagree. I may not have children, but... a) I was a child and remember how/why my parents disciplined me. I'm only 26, I'm not THAT far removed from my childhood. b) I might WANT to have children one day, so I SHOULD post my thoughts on the subject so if I'm totally screwed up, YOU can make my life (and the future kid's life!!) a little easier! ;)
Go ahead... Post your thoughts. I guarantee that parenting is nothing like you imagine and is much harder to do than your parents made it look.
As a child, I almost believed my mother had some magical way of knowing when we were doing something we weren't supposed to. Now, as an adult parent I can attest that children are the most horrible liars. Their entire body gives them away. They are as easy to read as puppies and they simply cannot comprehend that we too were once children. Been there done that and got the spanking to prove it. :)
-
Eagler - Yeah, I knew what you meant in the puppy/kid analogy... the image of whacking a kid with a rolled up newspaper was too much to resist! Sorry :)
Et al - I don't believe in spanking my kids, but I don't have a problem if others spank theirs if they feel it is necessary. While I don't spank my kids, my wife and I do discipline them. I would never leave that important of an obligation up to "society" or government. I believe that if you do spank your kids, that kind of discipline should be over by the time your child enters the first grade. I don't think parents of any elementary or middle-school kid should be spanking them.
By the way, we are conservative Republicans, and very involved with our kid's schools.
-
The downward trend of violence is a misperception. I've been in law enforcement since 1980. Believe me, you don't see it all on TV. Our society is going down the tubes in a hurry.
To qualify, I have 2 children, ages 19 & 16.
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Apache ]
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
[QB]
I think our jails are full of people that were taught violence by being spanked. I don't agree with all the folklore that extols the virtue of corporal punishment for kids.
QB]
so spanked children grow up to be violent and commit crimes?? oh brother.....you'd be very happy in my town with that philosophy - imagine all the new victims that could be created from post spanking syndrome.
generations of americans have grown up nonviolent, well-adjusted and respectful despite spankings. in fact the generation in which spankings weren't questioned didnt have to lock their doors and referred to their elders as sir and ma'am and actually sat quiet in class! i cant say that about the new enlightened crowd.
i watched a little girl on the bus pull this woman's hair because she thought it was a wig. the mother said to stop in a nice correct tone and the girl laughed at her and explained that she thought it was a wig. the mother laughed at the thought. a few seconds later she did it again and the mother said "that's enough - time out for you when we get home" the girl whined a little and stopped. never once did the mother demand the child apologize to the lady.
such a move in my childhood would never have happened - maybe once at most. it isnt something that should be corrected after the fact with some pc punishment - it simply should never happen in the first place. kids dont understand why they shouldnt do things sometimes - if you are kind to your children and only spank them when it is necessary then they will respect and not fear you.
i dont remember even one spanking that actually hurt - it was just the feeling that you had gone too far and disappointed your parents that made it work. going to the corner or losing some privilege really had minimal impact. in fact after the age of 5 or so spankings aren't really necessary - the kid should know better by then and you can reason with them.
-
I feel it should be noted for the record that Mr. Fish, perhaps but not necessarily as a result of him being spanked as a child, now regularly pays a transvestite hooker to give him a good spanking. Just wanted to interject that, in case it was relevent to the argument!
SOB
-
MrFish,
I don't have a problem with any parent who feels that it is appropriate to spank thier young child. I think it's a parent's right and obligation to discipline thier kids.
I don't spank my kids. I don't believe it's necessary. Maybe I've just been lucky with my kids (all fairly well-behaved girls).
However, its been my observation that incidents of hitting, spanking, and whippings of children become more frequent the lower down the socio-economic strata you go. I stand by my statement that many, if not most, of the convicted violent offenders in jail or prison have been subjected to physical parental violence. I have no way of proving that they have, its just my impression. I have no way of proving that being subjected to this violence as a child causes a person to be violent in later life. But it seems to me that a child learns how to deal with anger from its parents. It is obvious that these felons have problems in that regard.
In your example of the woman and her daughter on the bus, its pretty clear that the mother had no control over her child. I'm suggesting that the mother didn't lose control at that moment, she lost control over her child long ago through lack of discipline.
-
AhA! There we have it, he doesn't have boys! Little boys were created by God to show parents that discipline may be required!
My sister never spanked her kids, 4 girls....my mother and father never spanked my sisters, only me, wanna know why? THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING AS BAD AS I DID!
one word: Testosterone. :D
-
LOL <S> Ripsnort :)
-
fair enough gunthr - you did get off easy though by having girls :)
sob: that's eddie murphy you are thinking about.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
fair enough gunthr - you did get off easy though by having girls :)
I beg to differ, when his girls and my boys are teenagers, I will only have to worry about two salamanders in town, he'll have to worry about EVERY salamander in town... ;)
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
fair enough gunthr - you did get off easy though by having girls :)
No way! Gunthr's trials are yet to come ... I wouldn't trade a boy child for a girl child anyday :) especially in the 10 to 16 year old range, can't imagine trying that unless she was studying to be a nun in a convent somewhere :)
-
Eagler, Believe me, I tell them boys are only out for one thing... but they say that I only say that because that was how I was LOL
Ripsnort: In the words of my six year old girl - "Girls rule, boys drool!"
MrFish, there are benefits to living with 5 women. You never have to answer the phone, just sit there and watch the stampede :D
-
Balance... I think a child will turn out in a fashion that is directly related to key elements in thier enviroment. A home with a lot of love but stern displine will turn out a good person... a home with a lot of displine but no love will turn out something... a home with alot of love but no displine will turn out something ...
You stack your odds with some balance. I think sometimes parents can fail to produce themselves as objects of authority. Those that do seem to be able to "control" the kids better. If a child has no respect for you... give up trying to get them to listen.
Anyway... good luck with the rugrats all :)
xBAT
-
Well said Batdog...
HEY!
This thread is out of control, all of you go to your rooms now, this discussion is too civil.
-
I am not sure why I am doing this because I prefer to stay out of these threads, but a squadie pointed me this way. I also don't think minds are changed much, but you never know.
Father of 4 here. Three girls and one boy.
Yes I spank my children. If you have never raised a "strong willed child" then consider yourself fortunate or blessed depending on your belief. Out of all of you who are reading this thread maybe only a few "really" understand what it is to raise a strong willed child. Maybe you have one, or a family member or friend does. For some of you just talking it out might work for your kids, but don't ever suppose that will work on ALL children or that we should ALL be expected to use what works for some others. There is no one formula that will work for all children and if someone is telling you that, they are sadly mistaken. I don't care if they have a Phd from Hillery it takes a village or not. They are wrong.
Before I spank them I always explain why and that I still love them. Afterwards I always tell them I love them and ask them why they were spanked. I never use a belt or any other object, but only my hand. I always spank on the rear end and will never strike them anywhere else. I spank for defiance and little else. Three swats and never any more though sometimes less. NEVER in anger, that is when you might step over the line from displine to abuse/punishment. I never would spank for so many of the "things children do". Most of it is just exploring and a time out or a talk to will work.
I hope you don't ever have to spank your children. Many don't have to, but don't consider yourself making a mistake or a failure because you have had occasion to.
Lastly it is NOT the boy who is the problem, but one of the girls. :D My son is one of the most compliant children I have ever known. :) I never have to spank him. Takes after his dad. ;)
It is my hope that all of you who do raise children let them know daily how much you love them. That will carry and guide them better than anything you can come up with.
James "daddog" Glazier
Husband
Father
Teacher
-
That was really well said, Dad. :) I can't disagree with any of it. <S>
For me, the semantics get in the way, ie "spanking" vs whipping. I think I've got an emotional chip on my shoulder on this issue because I was my dad's "workout" partner growing up, if you know what I mean.
I am blessed that all my kids take after thier old Dad, and are extrememly bright, good looking and well behaved. ;)
Gunthr
[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Gunthr ]
-
WOW, what a beautiful thread!!
Civil and interesting, WTG gents!
Only sad think is that I need mental care, I've found myself agreeing with Rip! :eek:
;)
-
It's almost embarrassing how often I find myself agreeing with StSanta and Sandman these days.
Must be because I'm far too lazy and inarticulate to express my views coherently for myself. And to think that StSanta isn't even doing it in his native language! ;)
S!
-
Originally posted by Naso:
Only sad think is that I need mental care, I've found myself agreeing with Rip! :eek:
;)
Geological and political preferences tend to sway us to 'sterotype' people, you and I would probably be pleasantly surprised how much we really agree on!
-
I bet I can beat Ripsnort up real good.
All them muscles will make 'im slow.
Whatya say, you dumb farmboy hillbilly yank, wanna go at it?
I won't kick you in the groin, since I suspect there's little to hit.
<Still trying to make up for the pro-American 4th july post>
Come get some, yank scum.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
never once did the mother demand the child apologize to the lady.
Here's why. Telling children to say they are sorry when they are not teaches them that there is profit in lying. Eventually, they figure it out and when they do apologize, they mean it.
-
Not making your children apologize for abhorrent behavior? Especially young ones? I disagree. I don't believe we teach people to lie just because we make them apologize. We teach them there are limits to behavior. We teach them where the limit is. We also show others around us that we, even if our children aren't, are sorry for the behavior and will make an attempt to curtail it.
If I was the person having my hair pulled and didn't hear appropriate action being taken by the mother I might be tempted to take action myself- this mirrors society's model (i.e. handle yourself properly or society is forced to handle you). I would most likely direct my energy right at the parent. In today's world that will most likely mean the parent and I will exchange some heated words- now there is a wonderful example for the child!
Not to get personal, but I am left wondering where it is acceptable to disallow anything a child does anymore. I was spanked as a child, and most likely earned every one I ever had. I would have laughed heartily at "time out". Knowing Dad was coming home and I was going to get a grade-A a**-whupping sure made me think twice about doing things that were unacceptable. Once I figured out right and wrong I didn't need such incentive.
On a more technical aside, the argument here is one more of motivation and values. Some believe that children will do whatever you ask if you explain it to them. This is not true. Children are people, and people want what they want how they want it when they want it. Children are simply more open about their desires than adults. If explaining right and wrong was all that was needed to make people behave, we could tear down our prisons, right? ;)
For people to behave in any desired way there must be intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to do so. The target with young people is to get them intrinsically motivated, but that means instilling the desired value system, without which intrinsic motivation just doesn't happen. This is where the true magic of education (your own or other children) occurs. How do you make anyone believe your way is the right way? And with children, how do you keep their attention long enough to sway them? You are forced to use extrinsic motivation, and of a type of sufficient discomfort to make disobeying more unpleasant than following their own wishes.
Talking is great, but let's face it, we all have the ability to tune out those we don't wish to hear. We learn that as children, by all the talks our parents give us. I say once again, I can remember maybe two talks my parents gave me that mattered at all in the way I thought. I can remember plenty of whippings and why I got them. As I got older I began to understand my parents' motivations, and even began to appreciate their values. Suddenly I didn't need extrinsic motivation (spankings). I had internalized the message (intrinsic). It was part of the belief system. Did spankings make me understand the message better? Indirectly, because if I hadn't been spanked I might never have thought about why I was punished. Without that introspection I would never have had the opportunity to internalize the belief system I now have. I would be a different person than I am today, and I doubt it would have been a better person.
You discipline your children because you love them. You spank them because sometimes it is what they need to make them listen and think. It may seem harsh and brutal, but believe me when I say I get to teach a generation of kids that are raising themselves because their parents don't believe in conventional parenting. Kids will and do develop belief systems as they mature, just don't be sure it will be the ones you wish.
For those that don't spank, fine, don't. That is your choice. Just remember, just as there are those that are abusive on the extreme spanking end of the spectrum, there are those on the extreme end of non-aggressive discipline. Neither work.
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
For those that don't spank, fine, don't. That is your choice. Just remember, just as there are those that are abusive on the extreme spanking end of the spectrum, there are those on the extreme end of non-aggressive discipline. Neither work.
Hmmmm ... not spanking our children worked for us. I guess we must have done something wrong ;)
-
You misread me. My point is that if you take a totally passive approach to discipline it is not discipline at all. What I specifically refer to are the parents who believe that a wonderful human being will unfurl like a flower at sunrise- all you have to do is feed and water it. I am talking about parents who can reason away every form of direct intervention of child misconduct. I am speaking of parents who believe the emotional well-being (read "feelings") of their child is more important than the physical harm or property damage their children have generated.
I don't mean you have to spank to be a good parent, I mean you aren't a bad parent just because you spank. I mean you fail as a parent if you don't address misconduct. I mean you fail your child if you allow them to make others suffer for their convenience.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Here's why. Telling children to say they are sorry when they are not teaches them that there is profit in lying. Eventually, they figure it out and when they do apologize, they mean it.
well actually my upbringing says that when someone is wronged, an apology should follow. should they have just kept quiet and said nothing to the lady? if not from the child then definitley from the mother. the mother should at least be sorry for her child's actions because it is her poor parenting skills that allowed the child to think that her actions would be acceptable in the first place.
but i suspect you were just looking for something to disagree with me about more than trying to make a point.
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
Hey... no disagreement. If you feel that you've wronged someone, then you should say so. Now, if you're saying you're sorry simply because it's what they want to hear, it's not honest. The apology is cheap and meaningless.
I agree, children should know when to apologize. At the same time, children should also be honest, but by ordering them to say they are sorry when they aren't is a mixed message.
Sure... it's a subtle thing. Negotiating parenthood is by no means easy.
Along the way, I've found myself apologizing for my children more than once, but eventually they do get it and the apologies are no longer cheap and meaningless.
-
i can live with that - i just think someone ought to say something - one the other hand nothing worse than one of those fake and sacharine rich brat apologies " say sorry to the silly man precious and mommy will get you an ice cream " :)
-
Exactly!
Sir, we are in violent agreement. :)
-
Children are evil things.
it should be for the masses to produce them to see forth that the elite has young mating partners and the species continues, but beyond that, they're just an evil necessity.
They severly restrict your movements and is a huge financial burden. Unless your goal in life is something as uttery boring as marriage children volvo house retirement die, you really shouldn't have children.
Fortunately for me, this is exactly what the average plebeian idiot wants out of life. Routines that substitute each other, a predictability that makes the mundane even more boring and tedious. Uninteresting lives where discussions revolve around "how was school?", "eat your food", "do so because I say so" and little more.
Some may argue that one can do cool things even when you have kids.
Well, imagine what you could do if you DIDN'T have them. More cash, and, if you're a responsible parent type, a helluva lot more options.
They're evil life-limiters and most of us are unable to get over our biological urge to get them, even though our intellect knows it's overall a pretty bad idea.
Let the masses produce the necessary bastards. Let them make the feeble minded boring routine supervision and blah blah.
The world is my playground and the plebeian masses there to support and amuse me.
Having children. Whoever came up with that idea?
Children cause me to miss the Rumble 2001 - my brother, although possessing a very significant intellect - also fell into this pit and I have to go watch his kid get baptized.
BAPTIZED! Hell, let the KID choose when she is old enough. I miss the rumble for THAT?
They're evil, I tell, you, evil.
Our organisatoin takes over when they're ready for indoctrin...ehm, "teaching of the real ethical and moral values".
You poor parents. You know what you potentially are missing but is trading that for a life of routine and mediocrity.
:D
-
Hehe... yep... can't wait to kick 'em outta my house. :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
You misread me. My point is that if you take a totally passive approach to discipline it is not discipline at all. What I specifically refer to are the parents who believe that a wonderful human being will unfurl like a flower at sunrise- all you have to do is feed and water it. I am talking about parents who can reason away every form of direct intervention of child misconduct. I am speaking of parents who believe the emotional well-being (read "feelings") of their child is more important than the physical harm or property damage their children have generated.
I don't mean you have to spank to be a good parent, I mean you aren't a bad parent just because you spank. I mean you fail as a parent if you don't address misconduct. I mean you fail your child if you allow them to make others suffer for their convenience.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. You cannot raise children without discipline. But that discipline needs to be tempered with love, understanding, and compassion.
I think my personal objection to spanking is that it is only a clinched fist and a six-pack of beer away from being physical child abuse. If you become to accustomed to hitting your child whenever you want to make a point, then you open yourself up big time for the possibility that one day, when YOU are out of control, you will wind up hurting your child in a way that goes far beyond the cause of discipline. I've seen this happen and it makes me sick to my stomach.
And I think we should be concerned with the effects on our children's feelings and emotional well-being of whatever disciplinary approach we choose. After all, they are people, too, and deserve the same respect as anyone else. And emotional abuse can be equally as damaging to a child as physical abuse. I speak from experience, here - mine. It took me many years of therapy to overcome my emotionally abusive upbringing.
Keep in mind, here, that we are the adults. We are the ones who supposedly have knowledge, experience, and wisdom on our side. We should, then, be able to find a way to discipline our children without harming them, either physically or emotionally, be it a swat on the butt, a "natural consequence", or time-out in the corner.
If we can't learn to discipline our children without harming them, then we simply shouldn't have children.
IMHO.
Buhdman, out
[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: buhdman ]
-
My Dearest St.Santa-
Let me respond to your tongue-in-cheek soliloquy with a bit of philosophy.
Parenthood is perhaps the greatest joy of life, and the ultimate expression of love. It is the fountain of youth, whereupon we (the aged) live again vicariously through the eyes of our children. It is where we pass on the vital piece of ourselves that will outlast our mortal shells. It is the fulfillment of our purpose as people. It is the great teacher, where our theories of psychology are put to the true test. It is a teacher of cooperation and compromise, a teacher of sacrifice and the existance of something greater than self. And if you pardon this religious context it is the true metaphor of God's love. Love for our children is unquestioning and unwavering, and because of it we can begin to understand God's love for us.
;)
-
Heya Kieren :)
In the interest of the Elitist Who Say No To Evil Kids Movement, I feel compelled to answer. We're right, but then again, we're the elite. I don't think that you poor plebeians will have a chance of understanding what I'm saying, but my views are so clear, concise and correct that it's joyful for me just to give them for free.
[n]Parenthood is perhaps the greatest joy of life, and the ultimate expression of love. It is the fountain of youth, whereupon we (the aged) live again vicariously through the eyes of our children.[/b]
You only got one life. Live it right in the first place and there'll be no need to have a poor substitute such as kids.
It is where we pass on the vital piece of ourselves that will outlast our mortal shells. It is the fulfillment of our purpose as people.
Boooh, hisss. When we're dead, we're dead. Just think about it; first generation, half yer DNA is passed. Second, only a fourth. Move on a few hundred years and your DNA will be almost completely wiped out. You might as well just pack some cells and freeze 'um down; they're more potent as replicas of you and more "you" than some other person.
And, we're not banana flies. Well, you the grey unschooled masses are, but we, the Elite, aren't. Our purpose in life is not to procreate and ensure the continuation of human life. Sure, that's what evolution has engrained in us and it's an instinctual thing, but it can be overcome. The meaning of life is the same as the meaning of coffee - anything we define it to be. note I say "we", but what I mean with "we" is the Elite, and only a subset of the Elite; those agreeing with my views.
It is the great teacher, where our theories of psychology are put to the true test. It is a teacher of cooperation and compromise, a teacher of sacrifice and the existance of something greater than self.
You can do all this without having kids. If yer good at it, chances are you'll get more outta life.
And if you pardon this religious context it is the true metaphor of God's love. Love for our children is unquestioning and unwavering, and because of it we can begin to understand God's love for us.
I can come up with numerous cases where parents aren't particularly pleased about their kids. Some cases where they downright don't love 'um. Perhaps the same is true for an eventual God.
Heheh, now seriously, I see your point.
Seen from an evolutionary point of view, it's in our best interests to select a mate which will produce offspring with qualities that'll aid in the survival of said offspring. In the human species it's not enough just to mate and give birth however; like with most intelligent mammals, the offspring is very vulnerable initially and has a lot of learning to do. So, we have in us a mechanism that ensures we take care of this step too.
But if I have to choose between a life of compromises, sacrifices, stupid boring routines and being tied up for 18 years and a life of freedom, at this point in my life the choice is very easy.
I also recognize that the pleasures we get outta life comes from our primitive sides - sex is one. Subjecting oneself to danger, perceived or real, also gives us a thrill. Being in love is a big time kick. Simple touches from a loved one the same and so on and so forth. Or so I've heard. Anyway.
With a little luck, that instinctual need won't manifest itself til I'm much older and have done more fun stuff with no obligations or unnecessary responsibilities lying around in the back of my mind.
My bro has got three kids now, and I think I have a quite good idea of what you're talking about - and it's a tempting concept! I just feel that too many fall for the temptation without thinking about the consequences and as a result we have kids growing up with bad parents. Which in turn affects me, because they're out there doing annoying stuff that hurt others.
Who knows, mayhap I'll remain childless for my entire life. I don't worry too much about dying alone, because that's what we all will do; death is the ultimate private thing and can only be done by the person doing the dying (duh, obviously). Living alone isn't bad either, because it frees one of a lot of responsibility and emotional strain and adds a great deal of personal freedom.
So what I'm asking with this tirade is: how many have actually considered the consequences of having a kid? It seems to me that even some of the people who HAVE kids are utterly unaware of the responsibilities involved, and *that* scares me a lot - if they are and they actually have kids, who knows what consequences I haven't foreseen?
Seems like a risky, life limiting endevour to me, and I certainly hope all the primitive rewards one gets from having kids make up for the added responsibility and the limits on actions having kids means.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Geological and political preferences tend to sway us to 'sterotype' people, you and I would probably be pleasantly surprised how much we really agree on!
Oh my, OH MY!! I'm agreeing again!!! :eek:
:)
I have always believed this, if just people will stop to "stereotyping" (?sp.?) others, this green ball will be a lot more pleasible (?sp.?) place to live.
S!