spanking or not?
Just wanted to put my 2 cents in on the subject.
I am a mom of 2 kids, I have a almost 17 yr old son and an almost 4 yr old little girl. My son is from my first marriage, which ended after 2 or so years. I raised him from about 3 to 9 yrs alone. I tried very hard to not spank, as I was trying to make up for the father not being in his life. I was one of those moms who gave him any and everything and for the most part spoiled him unconditionally.
Now comes a new marriage and a new baby. After raising my son without spankings I now see the problem that arises out of that type of situation. My son is not a bad kid and has never been in any trouble, but he does lack the knowledge of knowing when I mean business and when he can slide with something.
I decided upon having the baby girl that I would use spankings as a end resort if other things didnt work. I have only had to spank her a few times, but I can honestly say that I should have been spanking my son thru the years. I see the difference in the two of them now and realize that if I had brought my son up with knowing he would recieve spankings if he didnt do as he was told It would have worked out better for him in the long run.
I want both of my children to respect discipline and authorities and want them both to know that there is always going to be rules and laws that they have to follow or they will have to suffer the consequences.
I would add that I dont agree with severe beatings or spankings and I dont agree with spankings being done in public. But I do think the school systems have gone way too far in telling our children that they should call 911 if they are being hit by their parents. Many years ago my son threatened me that if I ever spanked him that he would call 911 on me. I was furious with the school! But recently I heard a comedian say about this very subject: Thats fine you can call 911 IF you can make it to the phone LOL LOL I thought that was too funny!!!
:p :p
welcome, sandra.
You have a unique perspective on this subject, and i appreciate your honesty in your self assessmant concerning the way you raised your older son, and what you'd have done differently. I think there is a general consensus that it's more the point of the spanking than the actual pain. Inflicting pain on your child out of spite or revenge for bad deeds IS abuse, but when used sparingly to illustrate where the line is, I feel that it is essential.
Granted that it only works, as Whit, Zippy, and I have stated, if done ultra-consistantly. you can't let them by because t is inconvenient to immediately punish them... So, while you excepted doing this in public, I'm not so sure about that. If the kids realizes that he/she can play you when there are other adults around, than, he may play you when there are other adults around. Maybe you need to remove the child from the public and administer the whoopin.
ps....there is already a thread that this topic is being discussed in called "discipline" you should post replies there instead of a new thread :)
jim
Originally posted by SandraC
But recently I heard a comedian say about this very subject: Thats fine you can call 911 IF you can make it to the phone LOL LOL I thought that was too funny!!!
:p :p
Heh! It's either that or "Go ahead, call them. I'll give you a good reason to call them!" ;)
[COLOR=indigo]Before he actually DID call them, I used to say, "Better call the ambulance first."[/COLOR]
Just wanted to put my 2 cents in on the subject.
I am a mom of 2 kids, I have a almost 17 yr old son and an almost 4 yr old little girl. My son is from my first marriage, which ended after 2 or so years. I raised him from about 3 to 9 yrs alone. I tried very hard to not spank, as I was trying to make up for the father not being in his life. I was one of those moms who gave him any and everything and for the most part spoiled him unconditionally.
Now comes a new marriage and a new baby. After raising my son without spankings I now see the problem that arises out of that type of situation. My son is not a bad kid and has never been in any trouble, but he does lack the knowledge of knowing when I mean business and when he can slide with something.
I decided upon having the baby girl that I would use spankings as a end resort if other things didnt work. I have only had to spank her a few times, but I can honestly say that I should have been spanking my son thru the years. I see the difference in the two of them now and realize that if I had brought my son up with knowing he would recieve spankings if he didnt do as he was told It would have worked out better for him in the long run.
I want both of my children to respect discipline and authorities and want them both to know that there is always going to be rules and laws that they have to follow or they will have to suffer the consequences.
I would add that I dont agree with severe beatings or spankings and I dont agree with spankings being done in public. But I do think the school systems have gone way too far in telling our children that they should call 911 if they are being hit by their parents. Many years ago my son threatened me that if I ever spanked him that he would call 911 on me. I was furious with the school! But recently I heard a comedian say about this very subject: Thats fine you can call 911 IF you can make it to the phone LOL LOL I thought that was too funny!!!
:p :p
I read with interest regarding smacking of children. It is an extremely touchy subject. When I was a child growing up in Australia my mum never hesitated giving me and my brother a good belting if she thought we deserved it and she was never hit us half hearted either. She would later explain to me what we did wrong and give us a cuddle after. So my brother and I learnt how to respect authority and other people by mostly a few choice words and the odd belting off our dear old mum. And we both still love her.
My brother and I both turned out to be ok, we both have worked hard and have families of our own now and ironically we have both never hit our children and they are all good young people and will be decent citizens when they become adults.
I can't explain it, it was normal practice to smack your child 20 years ago but today it is frowned on. Children can grow up to be decent people without getting smacked provided they understand that mum and dad are the boss and good parents will drum into their children about love, respect and honour themselves and others.
It is funny you mention about schools encouraging children to call the authorities if they are smacked by their parents. When my brother and I grew up in the 1970's and 80's in Australia it was standard practice for schools to dish out punishment to the students if they didn't tow the line. I'll never forget "6 of the best" with the leather strap (3 on each hand) in front of the whole class. And you never ever cried in front of your peers no matter how much it stung. It was always the quickest way to earn respect from your mates. The bamboo stick across the hands or behind the legs was another popular method of torture the teachers used to employ. Luckily for the students corporal punishment was outlawed in 1986.
Was their corporal punishment in US schools?
In my home, I teach that physical and verbal violence is wrong. That there is always another, more intelligent way to resolve differences. If I were then to turn around and HIT my kids, I am contradicting my own teachings and sending them mixed messages.
So I am creative where discipline is concerned. I often use scut work (scrubbing a moldy/mildew'y section of pavement or cleaning out the gutters, for example) or loss/earning of priviledges. I'll unplug your internet, take away your Nintendo DS, disconnect your phone....or give you 2 hours game time, or some special activity together to either reward or discipline my kids. I do not have problems with them for the most part. My 10yr old has some issues resulting from visitation with her dysfunctional dad (my ex), but thats to be expected to some degree. Mostly, she is a good kid. My 19yr old son does not drink, smoke, or do drugs. He has finished high school, has full time employment and is consistantly respectful towards me. My 2yr old is well behaved, sweet, helpful and obedient.
In short, my kids obey me and the law out of respect, consideration and love, not fear (of being hit).
Stormie
We have found that spanking really does not work on our son. He just carries on with life. However, if we take a way a car (he has so many of them, but knows if any one is missing) he will straighten up right away.
We did try spanking a few times, but it just didn't accomplish what we needed. We are not opposed to it. We were both spanked - appropriately I might add - and still love and respect our parents very much. I just think different things work for different kids.
My brother has a couple that must be spanked to get any results. The other two only require some time in the corner to get the desired results.
I think you have to start out with the least harshest of punishments and work your way up (or down) to find what works best with your child.
I honestly don't think the type of discipline used matters as much as the fact that discipline is used, and is seen to be consistent and fair.
Obviously I don't agree that beating children is acceptable, but I don't see a great deal of difference between using the naughty step/ corner and a swat on the backside as long as both are proceeded by a warning and ended with an apology (from the child) and forgiveness from the parent.
I did smile at the idea that your discipline has prevented your 19yo from smoking, drinking or doing drugs though Stormie. By that standard I'd have to say the vast majority of Dwellars had undisciplined childhoods :) Kudos to you for doing a good job of course.
LOL Sundae Girl...I meant more that he is a responsible young man, and all of the above at his age are illegal. He may very well drink once he comes of age, that is up to him, but in the meantime, I won't tolerate him breaking any laws (or my house rules).
Of course - I forgot that you have different age restrictions in the US (excepting drugs of course!)
I would rather die than smoke or take drugs around my parents, so I do know what you mean.
I'd just like to register my extreme disappointment at this thread. I was expecting something much saucier.
Well Dana, I'll spank your's if you'll spank mine.
:rollhappy :whip:
K now we talkin!
Nope.
Teaches him one thing. Violence is an answer and when you are bigger than someone beating them up is how you get your way.
Has NOTHING to do with teaching them right from wrong.
Kids cannot see your objective, nor will they believe you if your excuse contradicts your actions... nor should they.
They can only see and WILL only LEARN from your tactics; in this case violence is the answer when I want something from someone.
Those are the facts, now my opinion.
Parents resort to spanking when they are tired, stressed and at their wits-end and cannot think of what to do next to:
Get their attention
Get them to listen
Get them to/not to _____
And, finally, the one that break out the belt/hand of those who swore they would never hit their kids; when the kid does something that scares the HOLY SHIT out of them
So, they hit the kid. Justified by past parents, others who say they "turned out GREAT", use words like "pat" and "spank" (never think reality: hitting and assult... though that is what it is, what it would be if someone did it to you just to get you to listen to them or to sit down at work). Justify it by telling themselves, "it's only a last resort" & "my family turned out great, except ____ and that's different", "other people need counseling to help them learn how to ______ not me! I've already raised ____ kids!"....
& the hits just keep coming....
But they are all lies.
Hitting is hitting... if you don't feel like it is justified against you... it is not against them.
There is not ONE situation that cannot be resolved without violence, not ONE.
Therefore, there is no excuse... I don't give a shit how many generations have done it for how long, that is the stupidest excuse I have ever heard of... I had lead paint in my room and I turned out fine... dumb.
I do hit my kids - but only in self defense.
LOL, that's different.
Oh, there are foam sword fights that get out of hand here.
Nope.
Teaches him one thing. Violence is an answer and when you are bigger than someone beating them up is how you get your way.
Has NOTHING to do with teaching them right from wrong.
Kids cannot see your objective, nor will they believe you if your excuse contradicts your actions... nor should they.
They can only see and WILL only LEARN from your tactics; in this case violence is the answer when I want something from someone.
Those are the facts
No they are not. They are opinions.
Consider the case of the parent who "spanks" (this is only used in kinky terms in the UK -"smacks" is the term there) only at certain levels of behaviour of for certain misdemeanours (for example life-endangering ones).
They do not spank everytime they want their kid to obey, so how is this teaching that beating people up is the way to get their own way? where is the proof that this is what children who are spanked understand? No proof = no fact.
/pedant
Ok.
Tell me exactly what the action of hitting them teaches them please?
Ok.
Tell me exactly what the action of hitting them teaches them please?
Tell me
exactly where I said it teaches them anything. You were the one who said it teaches them something.
Teaches him one thing. Violence is an answer and when you are bigger than someone beating them up is how you get your way.
It may do that. It may not. It ain't fact, though. I merely stated some occasions which may or may not rebuff your "fact".
Given that some parents spank selectively, does it teach the children that violence is the way to get your own way? Or does it teach them that bigger people are unpredictably violent? Or does it teach them that some misdemeanours are worse than others? Or does it teach them nothing at all? Your call. But whatever you decide, your certainty does not make it a fact. it is a fact that some parents spank selectively -look back up this thread and the previous one for proof.
Don't all parents spank selectively? "I only spank them when they need it", or "I only spank them when they're really bad", or "I only spank them when they piss me off".
I think children learn MORE from what they observe than what they're told, particularly if the two contradict each other. Lying is wrong! Tell that bill collecter I'm not home~ Don't hit your little brother! *smack*.
What do kids do that is so terrible that they deserve to be hit for it? Would I accept it if someone hit ME to teach me something? So what makes it ok to hit someone smaller and more defenseless than I am? I am supposed to be my children's safe haven, their protector, not someone who physically HURTS them.
Personally, I think spanking or whatever cute euphemism you'd like to use for it, is often used because it's easier. Talking to your kids, teaching them by example and being consistantly vigilent in parenting is hard work. It's so much easier to just hit 'em, make 'em sorry right NOW, and get on with whatever you were doing.
Stormie
My kids have both felt the sting of a slap once or twice. If they're going to give me lip, they're going to find out it's unacceptable, and they're going to find out the hard way.
To me, people only 'obey rules' because they know they're get into trouble for not doing it.
Teaching kids morals and self discipline is another thing.
Teaching kids that if they want to be smart and tough, there's always going to be someone who's smarter and tougher is also a good lesson.
Fortunately, neither one of them has caused me too much grief since they learned to care about others.
Tell me exactly where I said it teaches them anything. You were the one who said it teaches them something.
It may do that. It may not. It ain't fact, though. I merely stated some occasions which may or may not rebuff your "fact".
Given that some parents spank selectively, does it teach the children that violence is the way to get your own way? Or does it teach them that bigger people are unpredictably violent? Or does it teach them that some misdemeanours are worse than others? Or does it teach them nothing at all? Your call. But whatever you decide, your certainty does not make it a fact. it is a fact that some parents spank selectively -look back up this thread and the previous one for proof.
Everything a child sees, hears and experiences, especially from their parents teaches them something.
You, as their parent decide what that is. That is your job.
Other than trying to avoid saying that... you said nothing.
What do kids do that is so terrible that they deserve to be hit for it?
Exactly.
If it's unacceptable to hit an adult, then it is unacceptable to hit a child. It seems utterly bizarre to me that children, society's most vulnerable members, are the only ones society deems it acceptable to hit.
Parents who hit their children, aren't necessairly violent, or bad parents. Most, I suspect, do it out of love, and/or desperation. It's completely understandable. Plenty of parents start out saying they'll never hit their child, then find themselves slapping a hand that's just edged dangerously near to a naked flame, or a leg that's just run dangerously near a busy road.
But not hitting your kids, is something worth striving for, I think. Sometimes our instinctive (and probably very ancient) parenting impulses aren't the best/only way to deal with something. We routinely control our anger/upset/annoyance around adults.
I'm a smacker when it is warranted, and by warranted I mean that the first 2 steps that make up my discipline routine went unheeded.
Consistency is the key in my book, but I agree with ToG that different methods work for different kids.
I am more than willing to discipline children in public too.
I have found the naughty corner to be very portable.
To me, people only 'obey rules' because they know they're get into trouble for not doing it.
So someone will never obey a rule to get a reward?
I'm a smacker when it is warranted, and by warranted I mean that the first 2 steps that make up my discipline routine went unheeded.
Consistency is the key in my book, but I agree with ToG that different methods work for different kids.
I am more than willing to discipline children in public too.
I have found the naughty corner to be very portable.
I guess it's ok to hit your wive then, as long as it is your third request and one is consistent. Even in public.
Parents who hit their children, aren't necessairly violent
LOL!!!
It is only "understandable" if they get help. I covered the fear response, again, get help, it is still not acceptable and just makes a bad situation far worse.
We control our anger around adults because they hit back. When I was in my 20's I taught a 16 yr old to beat up his dad. Something I am still
very proud of.
My mother-in-law hit my son on the hand once, took us two weeks to stop him from hitting.
My parents spanked me one time, I set their bed on fire, I was four.
I was a good kid and was always very upset if you told me that you were disappointed in me and that I had done something wrong and understood why, once you described it.
Hit me, and all I wanted was vengeance
and I was right.I think as long as the punishment is consisent and never done in anger it's fine.
Again, to teach them what?
Parents who hit their children, aren't necessairly violent
LOL!!!
Glad you find that funny. I know many people who have in some instances given their child a slap on the back of their leg....not hard enough to hurt, does that make them violent people? Their three year old just came perilously close to running out onto a busy main road, they underline their displeasure (and parental panic) with an almost symbolic smack that doesn't hurt, that makes them violent people? The words we're using cover a large spectrum, from something that barely registers, to something that will hurt and humiliate.
Rkz, have you found the occasion to need to use any punishments other than discussion with your son?
I'll tell you what I learned from being spanked as a child:
I deserve to be hit. And that carried over into not one, but two, abusive marriages.
Violence gets people's attention. Just as dear old mom and dad hit me when I smartmouthed them, why shouldn't I hit classmate X when they mock me?
There is a very thin line between spanking and abuse and when a parent loses their temper, that line gets real blurry, real fast. The child learns to endure the hitting and starts to ignore your admonitions, so you hit harder and longer to regain that control.
Children become numb to being spanked/hit, so you have to up the ante. First it's a smack on the hand, then the bottom, then a full-fledged multi-hit spanking, then you get out the belt. Slap them across the face this time, and it's a short trip to punching them in the mouth next time.
Fear is NOT respect Fear as well as anger produce adreneline. It can be addictive to feel the surge of adreneline when you get angry or fearful. But this doesn't help anyone use their powers of reason or intellect to solve problems. Obeying the rules out of fear doesn't instill internal values, rather, it teaches a child to not get caught.
Pain = love "I'm doing this because I love you." "If I didn't love you so much, I wouldn't care, but because I do love you, I must punish you by hurting you". After a spanking, possibly while one's buttocks are still burning, you get a hug or cuddle. So love=pain=love.
But ask me what I was being spanked FOR...and I couldn't answer you. I don't remember the reasons, the transgressions that I committed, or the lessons I was being taught. Very effective, those spankings :headshake .
Sure, time-out, taking away privileges, toys, things/activities that he likes. But, even those are always just things to get his attention when he is too wound-up so we can explain why what he did was wrong so he can understand it, the only reason to punish a child.
There is always something that you can do that is not hitting that is more important to a child than being hit.
Still, those times are VERY rare, usually, he responds to discussion first and having us being disappointed in him and just the idea of doing something wrong is worse than anything else.
He has morals.
Yes Dana, if they hit their kid, at that moment, they are violent... that is the definition.
Again, what does it teach them?
I think Stormie just told us.
Everything a child sees, hears and experiences, especially from their parents teaches them something.
You, as their parent decide what that is. That is your job.
Other than trying to avoid saying that... you said nothing.
I said you are claiming opinions as facts. That is all. I am not avoiding saying anything -you are trying to put words in my mouth and then argue about it. I am expressing no opinion on the rights and wrongs of "spanking" because I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is.
But I do object to half-assed amateur shrinks expounding their beliefs as "facts", no matter how logical they may be.
Violence is not the only way to be a bully. I do hope this is not the way you "discuss" right and wrong with your son.
Sure, time-out, taking away privileges, toys, things/activities that he likes.
So would you agree that you are teaching him that he should take other people's things when they annoy him?
This article says it better than I can:
Parents hitting their children has been accepted as a form of discipline in our society for so long that some parents can't imagine that it is possible to discipline children without hitting them. We have learned that not only is it possible to discipline children without hitting them, but it is impossible to discipline children by hitting them. Making children feel worse does not make them behave better. Dr. Daniel F. Whiteside, former Assistant Surgeon General, reported that, "Corporal punishment of children actually interferes with the process of learning and with their optimal development as socially responsible adults. We feel that it is important for public health workers, teachers and others concerned for the emotional and physical health of children and youth to support the adoption of alternative methods for the achievement of self-control and responsible behavior in children and adolescents."
When most of us were growing up, it was believed that as long as the hitting did no permanent physical damage, the physical punishment would "teach us a lesson." Although the words punishment and discipline are often used as if they mean the same things, punishment and discipline are very different. Punishment is defined as arbitrary harsh treatment for wrong doing. Discipline means to teach. The only "lessons" we teach children when we hit them are to hit, fear, and distrust those who hit them.
Most parents intend to teach their children to be courteous, respectful, responsible, kind and loving. Children learn most from imitating what they see us do. Since hitting is not courteous, respectful, responsible, kind or loving, how can we possibly expect to teach our children those things by hitting them? Hitting is punishment, not discipline. Punishing children doesn't teach them why their behavior was unacceptable or what they should do instead. Punishment is meant to deter children from repeating the behavior by being painful or unpleasant enough to cause the child to want to avoid being punished again. In theory, this method may sound effective, but in reality, being punished causes children to think more about the wrong that was done to them than the wrong they did.
The goal of parental discipline is to teach children self-discipline. If the only reason children have for not doing something wrong is the threat of being punished, then what guidelines will they have for acceptable behavior when no one is there to punish them? Hitting children when we catch them doing something wrong doesn't teach them how to do what's right; it teaches them that they need to be sneaky and to lie to avoid being caught.
Hitting children not only hurts their bodies, it hurts their hearts and minds. Instead of giving them the message that what they did was bad, being hit causes children to believe that they are bad. Research shows that children who are hit have lower self-esteem than children who are not hit. There is even some evidence from a British study that children who are hit may be less able to learn because physical punishments reduce children's IQ. Being hit triggers the fight or flight response in human beings. When we are hit, our rational thinking shuts down. All we can think about is hitting back or running away to protect ourselves. If we can't think about why what we did was wrong, we can't learn the right thing to do either. Most adults who were hit as children tell us that while they remember being hit, they don't remember why. This is more evidence that hitting fails as a form of discipline or teaching.
While not all people who were hit as children grow up to be hitters, all adults who hit grew up either being hit or witnessing hitting. When an adult hits another adult we call it assault. When a husband or wife hits the other we call it battering. When a big kid hits a little kid we call it bullying. When a parent hits a child we call it spanking. No matter what name we give it - a swat, slap, tap or spank, it is hitting. When the adults in a family hit each other we call it domestic violence. Why then, when the adults hit the children in the family, do we call it discipline? Nowhere else in our society is hitting considered acceptable. Isn't all hitting violence?
http://www.connectionparenting.com/parenting_articles/spanking.htmlWhen I was in my 20's I taught a 16 yr old to beat up his dad. Something I am still very proud of.
Youre saying its not OK to smack your child, but its ok for you to be proud of teaching a son to beat his dad? Which TAUGHT him that violence is the way to fix problems?
This topic always amuses me when it comes into play.
Its like the tattooed person v's a non tattooed person.
How about, you parent your way and I will parent mine?
Difference is, I wont try and force my way down your throat and think my opinion is a fact ;)
"Mom Accused of Hitting Kids on Flight
DENVER (AP) -- Flight crews appropriately handled a passenger accused of repeatedly hitting her two young children on a Frontier Airlines flight, a company spokesman said.
An FBI affidavit alleges that Tamera Jo Freeman, 38, hit and cursed at her 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son during a flight from San Francisco to Denver on Monday. It also alleges that she assaulted and intimidated a flight attendant who intervened.
Freeman was arrested after the plane landed and was held for investigation of interference with a flight crew and assault on children, both federal charges. A judge said at a brief hearing Friday in U.S. District Court that she would remain in custody until another hearing next week.
The flight attendant intervened in the middle or near the end of the flight, and crew members followed airline rules, Frontier spokesman Joe Hodas said. The flight crew served Freeman two drinks, he said.
The children have been placed in the custody of relatives in California. Freeman's hometown wasn't released, and her court-appointed attorney, Martha Eskesen, declined to comment outside the courtroom Friday.
The FBI affidavit said Freeman told an investigator she "lost it" and slapped her children during the flight because they were fighting over the window shade and because her daughter had spilled a drink.
Six witnesses said Freeman hit the children on their legs, shoulders and knees, the affidavit said. Freeman appeared "drunk and violent" toward the children even before she boarded the plane, the affidavit said.
Freeman faces up to 21 years in prison and fines up to $350,000 if convicted of both charges."
A fitting punishment???
So someone will never obey a rule to get a reward?
This is the point ph.
There are road rules. No one rewards you for following them, but if you don't, you're going to either get booked, in an accident or killed.
There are house rules. You might get rewarded if you follow them although I don't agree with this philosophy. I believe every individual in the household is responsible for certain things which may include jobs, but it also includes being considerate of the other members of the household. This is an every day courtesy and I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for that other than being thanked for their efforts.
I don't reward my kids with lollies and treats or extra screen time. They get enough junk when I'm not watching, and they spend too much time watching tv etc already. They are rewarded by
knowing they've got parents who love them and care for them, and who go out of their way to make their lives better.
It's a parents moral responsibility to teach kids to realize there's more to life than just them.
I don't subscribe to all this new bullshit people keep coming up with about not smacking etc. Some kids need a wack every once in a while. Others don't.
There are enough selfish people in the world already. I wont have my kids growing up thinking they're the centre of the universe and if they need a smack once in a while to bring them back down to earth, that's what they're going to get.
If you want my honest opinion - in case you don't get it yet - there's too much navel gazing going on these days and not enough doing.
I want both of my children to respect discipline and authorities and want them both to know that there is always going to be rules and laws that they have to follow or they will have to suffer the consequences.
Sounds like you are doing a great job. This is the key. Keep up the good work mom.
spanking is fabulous! i prefer the nekkid hand or a wide, flat brush, hard enough to sting a little...
oh, wait, are we talking about spanking kids???
Youre saying its not OK to smack your child, but its ok for you to be proud of teaching a son to beat his dad? Which TAUGHT him that violence is the way to fix problems?
This topic always amuses me when it comes into play.
Its like the tattooed person v's a non tattooed person.
How about, you parent your way and I will parent mine?
Difference is, I wont try and force my way down your throat and think my opinion is a fact ;)
He was an adult and I taught him to defend himself and his mother. I am a
firm believer in self-defense, even as a pacifist, no matter who is hitting you and your loved one(s).
Violence is not the only way to be a bully. I do hope this is not the way you "discuss" right and wrong with your son.
I find it very humorous how you read tone into my text, lol!
I do not steal his toys, I only keep him from playing with them until the next day, and that is a last resort... usually we use a time-out until he is calm and our conversations are very loving.
He does not wish to do wrong, we have instilled a desire to do the right thing for the right reasons... not a fear of being hit or embarrassed in public.
Difference is, I wont try and force my way down your throat and think my opinion is a fact
It happens that my opinion is backed by science and our society seems to think assault is everyone's business.
"It's not nice to hit people; children are people."
- Pam Leo
A fitting punishment???
If they were anyone else's kids would we be asking?
That answers the question.
I do not steal his toys, I only keep him from playing with them until the next day, and that is a last resort... usually we use a time-out until he is calm and our conversations are very loving.
Yes, ideally all punishments would be a last resort, and bookended before and after with loving discussions and explanations of right and wrong. There is an appropriate and inappropriate way to administer all punishments.
But you didn't answer the question. If using spanking as a punishment by definition teaches that child that hitting will solve their problems, then doesn't taking away their toys by definition teach the child that taking other people's things (even temporarily) will solve their problems?
Or is it possible that both can be experienced by the child for what they are, a specific punishment, handed down from adult to child, as a consequence of a specific behavior, without any extra emotional baggage?
[begin tangential rant]The most irritating thing in the world is listening to people who have only one child telling others how to parent. Those with no children are commonly railed against for offering their two cents, but to a certain degree even they know that it might be different were they really in the parents' shoes. But the parent with one child thinks they have it all figured out, that because they know how to parent their child, they have the whole of parenting mastered. The minute you have a second child, you realize that
every single child is different, even ones who share both genes and environment, and
nothing can be the end-all solution for every child.
We have a child, for example, whom we have never spanked--because he asks for it. I mean that quite literally, when he is in trouble he
requests a spanking in lieu of other punishments. This is a child who has always been stoic, even as a toddler if he fell he would blink back tears and insist that he was "fine" even though he was limping. Obviously spanking would not be an effective punishment with him, so we never have--but the fact remains that if he would prefer it, can it really be said that it would emotionally scar him more than it does when we have to take away his beloved (and I mean
beloved) trucks? Meanwhile, in another thread on this topic, lookout123 shared the story of his three-year-old, whose inappropriate behavior led to the typical punishment of his favorite toy being taken away. His son calmly went into his room, and began bringing all of his toys out one by one and laying them at his parents' feet. "You can take all of these too, because I'm going to keep doing it."
Each child responds to different punishments, but almost all young children require some punishment at some time. The brain goes through distinct levels of maturity with regard to morality, and a two-year-old simply does not understand the concept of empathy or right and wrong yet. Ultimately, the goal would be that by the age of 5 or so, they understand the idea of doing things simply because they are right, and for the most part no longer require punishing. But prior to that age, each child has their own completely unique way of interpreting and responding to the world around them, and being a successful parent to one doesn't mean jack squat about how well one would do with a different kid. [/end rant]
Great "tangential rant" clod - I'll add that the third child changes the dynamic exponentially too. I think I hit my youngest son once - AFTER he hit his mother and he was plenty old enough to know what he did and how wrong it was. That message was received. We discussed, some time later, what exactly had happened and the whys so on - Its been years and there has never been another isue with it. Proper parenting is as different as we all are. There is no "one way" to do it.
Each child responds to different punishments, but almost all young children require some punishment at some time. The brain goes through distinct levels of maturity with regard to morality, and a two-year-old simply does not understand the concept of empathy or right and wrong yet. Ultimately, the goal would be that by the age of 5 or so, they understand the idea of doing things simply because they are right, and for the most part no longer require punishing. But prior to that age, each child has their own completely unique way of interpreting and responding to the world around them, and being a successful parent to one doesn't mean jack squat about how well one would do with a different kid. [/end rant]
This really sums the subject up nicely. Every child requires a different approach. Some require more punishment than others. I can't ever remember having to spank our first child. My second a few times. My third a few times more than the second.
My momma beat me bad one time for bad grades.
Thereafter I got bad grades AND held a deep but uncertain resentment for her causing all of my pain.
Only later on did I realize that everyone holds a deep but uncertain resentment for their mothers causing them all their pain.
I'm not a parent, but I do remember a couple times when physical discipline was invoked by my mother when I was growing up. I was about eight or nine years old at the time.
-One time, I went to play baseball at a field that I had never gone to before. It wasn't much further away from home than the other ones I'd played at before, but it was never part of my "circuit", so to speak. Well into the game, I remember standing on second, looking out to the outfield during a pop fly, and seeing my mother's car go racing past on the road. I mean, she was cooking, and she rarely sped. Game's over, I get back, and my brother asks me where I was, what I was up to. I tell him, and he tells me that my mother was freaking out because she had no idea where I was or what I was doing. She had actually taken off to a park about half a mile away from the house, thinking I had gone there with some other kids in another parent's car - that was when I saw her flying up the road.
She gets back, sees me sitting on the couch in one piece and calm as milk (totally contrary to her fears that had been escalating every fifteen minutes since last we saw each other), sighs in relief, then goes into discipline-mode. She hauled me upstairs to my room, gave me a few smacks on my backside - flat palm, not a whole lot of force, any pain I felt was more shock than physical damage - and explained in loud and no uncertain terms that I was never to go off somewhere without leaving some kind of note or word with someone as to where I was going. (T-Mobile was a long ways off these days, folks.)
- Second memory I have was the two of us sitting in church. I'm a kid, and no more fond of dogmatically-guided life lessons as any other child. As with any other child my age, one hour is a unit of time that I can only just begin to wrap my head around, and to spend it motionless on a hard wooden pew is a task of Herculean proportions - all the harder to accomplish as I have no wristwatch to calm myself with a countdown to freedom. Ergo, I'm fidgeting.
My mom gets tired of it and grabs my wrist and squeezes it hard to get me to stop. Again, no actual physical damage - any trauma is from the sudden shock of it all. However, given the social obligations of the particular moment, she couldn't explain why she did that to me until after we got out. I got the message, and she took me out to a diner for lunch afterwards to make up for it, but to this day my memory of the event comes with feelings of anger rather than wrong action.
These were the only two times that my mother ever got physical with punishment - she preferred the time-honored methods of toy deprivation and/or a good old-fashioned Scottish guilt trip. However, I think I resent the church incident and not the baseball incident because the explanation for the punishment was delayed. Both levels of force were equal, no lasting physical damage was inflicted, the delay of explanation of wrongdoing was the only difference. That tells me that is the key component of using any physical discipline - closely associating an explanation of what was the offense with the punishment, along with just cause and not going too far.
(if this comes off as rambling rather than a polished argument, i apologize - getting this out before I leave work)
Well said Clod....absolutely magnificently said!!
My two are totally different, so different means of punishment and consequences need to apply.
Funnily enough, the same look comes over their faces at the mention of losing a toy, being sent to the time out corner or a smack.
RK - your opinion is not backed by science. Its backed by more opinions.
Ok, you are the one making the claim that hitting kids is a good thing, so the onus is on you to support that claim.
Find a peer-supported psychological study that supports it for us?
Personally, it sounds like it is your opinion that hitting kids is good.
I'm not saying its a *fact*, it is my opinion that occasionally smacking my children is *acceptable*.
BTW, I NEVER said hitting, you said hitting....no sorry, you said you taught someone to beat another person...thats what you taught him right? How did you ensure that he wasnt going to use his fists to settle other problems that cropped up in his life.
I'd still be interested in your response to Clods question.
I'd also be interested in how the "psychological study" proved that smacking a child will turn them into violent adults, or troubled or whatever it claims?
How do you explain the growing lack of respect in *youngsters* these days?
Smacking is not hitting?
LOL!!!
The onus is on you, you made the claim.
I have read several books, written by or backed by multiple PhDs, that state that smacking/spanking/hitting your kids is harmful in MANY ways.
http://www.jiskha.com/social_studies/psychology/spank_child.html
http://www.nospank.net/n-j14.htm
NEW YORK (AP) -- After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience.
The psychologist, Elizabeth Gershoff, found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands.
"Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals," Gershoff writes in the new edition of the American Psychological Association's bimonthly journal.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm
"The implications of these results are clear. The more someone is successful in life (not being a juvenile delinquent, not dropping out of school etc.) the less likely they were to have been physically punished as a child or the less severe the physical punishment. To put it the other way around: the more physical punishment, the more likely the person later became a criminal, high-school dropout etc." 5
"there appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems."
"depression often is a delayed response to the suppression of childhood anger...from being physically hit and hurt..." [by parents]...Melancholy and depression have been persistent themes in the family history, religious experience, and emotional lives of Puritans, evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals for centuries....The first assaults on children's bodies and spirits generally commences before conscious memory can recall them later. The unconscious thus becomes the repository of age, resistance, and desire for revenge that small children feel when being struck by the adults they love...the ancient angers persist while the adult conscience directs rage inward upon the self." 2
The researchers found that the children which were spanked the most as 3 to 5 year olds exhibited higher levels of anti-social behavior when observed 2 and 4 years later. This included higher levels of hitting siblings, hitting other children in school, defying parents and ignoring parental rules. Dr. Murray Straus, the co-director of the Laboratory noted how ironic it is that the behaviors for which parents spank children are liable to get worse as a result of the spanking.
There are more... this is sufficient.
I'm not trying to shove my opinion down your throat or preach to you about how you should be parenting, so there is no onus>
The only proof I need is that my children are happy, healthy, outgoing, cheeky toddlers, who are polite and respectful.
The other proof *I* have for *my* opinions is that I wouldnt have enough fingers or toes to count the well adjusted, successful, non serial killers, respectful people I know (including myself and 3 siblings), who were *smacked* as children.
Your avoidance of Clods question is very amusing to me.
'nuf said from me.
I answered the question, I'll state it again, perhaps you can read it this time.
No, I give it back and never state that I am stealing it. My son is not stupid and understands clearly what the situation is, he can even recognize a loaded question at four... sad that you can't.
The whole thing of, "oh, you only have one kid so you don't know that you have to hit em' " is so damn funny!!!! That one cracked me up!
I've lived with, and taken care of other kids, didn't hit em', nope. Just tried different humane tactics till I found one that works.
Perhaps someone will say it was my acting training that gave me an edge? More tactics at my command! LOL!
Hope no one takes this personally.
I still like you a lot Ducks.
I regret the wording of the loaded question sentence. Sorry about that.
How do you explain the growing lack of respect in *youngsters* these days?
The growing number of adults that don't deserve any. Respect is earned.
How did you ensure that he wasnt going to use his fists to settle other problems that cropped up in his life.
I can't, but not hitting him when he does something wrong then saying "don't hit people when you are angry" is one way to keep from looking like an idiot when I do finally say it to him. The only thing he would be doing then would be doing his DAMNEDEST not to laugh in my face and he would be exactly right to do it.
Do as I say and not as I do is a joke and kids get that joke from day-1.
I will teach him to defend himself and that alone and the only way I can make that stick is to live it in front of him.
The whole thing of, "oh, you only have one kid so you don't know that you have to hit em' " is so damn funny!!!!
Selective reading is another of your many traits?
There are no hard feelings..as I said, I will parent my way.
The growing number of adults that don't deserve any. Respect is earned.
I call BS on that.
Some kids total lack of respect to other's personal property and strangers (wont dont have the ability to earn their respect)..doesnt fit that bill.
Again, critical mass of adults in their life who have treated them like objects. They act like what they see.
Not enough adults behaving respectfully, they are going to act like morons.
We have them in our neighborhood, some who are animals living right next to very well behaved kids. Depends on who they live with.
Personally, I think most kids are just fine and people who have the whole "the world is unraveling one kid at a time" mind-set just watch too much alarmist news.
Pretty much everyone I know has been smacked as a child for whatever reason.
There is a growing trend in Australia against doing so which is simply a follow on from the UK and US although in my experience as a parent and an observer of other parents, I'd say it's not really taking hold like it has elsewhere.
It's probably because we're all descended from convicts and don't understand any other form of punishment.
Funny how I don't feel the need to beat everyone up because I copped a few hidings when I was kid. Funny how no one else I know does either.
I just don't buy the arguments that the non smackers come up with. Particularly those that come from places where the death penalty is still a form or punishment deemed suitable by the majority of people.
Rkzenrage, I have a disagree with you on the respect thing since I have just grown up through it. While kids will respect people that should very well be respected, that number is still much lower than what is deserved.
In order to be respected by the majority of kids you either have to appeal to them or drastically change their way of thinking. Appealing to them is extremely hard since I can only think of a very few that can appeal to both adults and children, usually it is a choice between one or the other. And not everyone can change someone's way of thinking.
I still think I am missing something and my statement is overexaggerated but those two traits are basically what I have seen that has gotten kid's respect. Social pressure from peers is much stronger than pressure from adults. My guess is because high school and college life is so much different from the "real world", that intermingling is very rare since they seem to contrast.
I just don't buy the arguments that the non smackers come up with. Particularly those that come from places where the death penalty is still a form or punishment deemed suitable by the majority of people.
I agree that that is immoral and one looks like a fool telling a kid not to be violent while telling them it is ok to murder someone strapped to a chair or table.
This easily can be a problem with authority in the US with some kids, not a core one, but must add to the issue on some subconscious level; any hypocrisy does.
Fortunately for me, I will tell my son that being for the death penalty and "moral" is just that IMO, explain why I feel that way, so there will be no issue in our home.
Pierce, I think you are grossly underestimating kid's ability to think for themselves. As a teacher for years, there are ages where they will behave erratically because of what their peers are doing (5th - 8th grades estimated), but if their core teachings and personality does not jive with that they will not be part of the central group and will grow out of it. I was part of that and also saw it over-&-over-&-over again. Many times encouraging kids to stop being tag-alongs.
Kids are just small people, they make decisions for the same reasons we do.
IMO, adults are more influenced by group-think than kids ever were.
Just because people who were spanked are not outwardly, physically, aggressive does not mean they are not aggressive and harmful in other ways, at least for a time while they learn to deal with the resentment of being hit by their loved ones.
Passive aggressive behavior is more damaging and as "violent", even more so & far more long lasting, than any beating can be.
The studies I posted clearly stated that there are lasting effects.
Passive aggressive behavior is more damaging and as "violent", even more so & far more long lasting, than any beating can be.
Wait, so the most horrible thing you can do to your kids is spank them, except for not spanking and being passive aggressive instead, because that's even worse?
Who said the "most horrible"? Was not me.
Keep in mind, I have stated clearly and unequivocally that telling kids that if they sin they are going to hell to suffer for all eternity is child abuse.
Pierce, I think you are grossly underestimating kid's ability to think for themselves. As a teacher for years, there are ages where they will behave erratically because of what their peers are doing (5th - 8th grades estimated), but if their core teachings and personality does not jive with that they will not be part of the central group and will grow out of it. I was part of that and also saw it over-&-over-&-over again. Many times encouraging kids to stop being tag-alongs.
Kids are just small people, they make decisions for the same reasons we do.
IMO, adults are more influenced by group-think than kids ever were.
I know what you are getting at and you are right, but I just don't think it happens that often. There are adults that should be respected when they aren't and I think that is due to the lack of contact between generations. Besides parents and teachers, it is rare, at least from what I've seen, for an adult and kid to have a good relationship with each other and for that adult to teach that kid how the world really does work.
It obviously isn't impossible nowadays for an adult and a kid to have that teacher-pupil-friend relationship but I very rarely see it.
Kids respect purple hair. I've found.
:D
the punishments I most resented were not spankings. Those were over and done with, but other, more creative punishments . . . those lingered and festered.
Pierce, I think you are grossly underestimating kid's ability to think for themselves. As a teacher for years, there are ages where they will behave erratically because of what their peers are doing (5th - 8th grades estimated), but if their core teachings and personality does not jive with that they will not be part of the central group and will grow out of it. I was part of that and also saw it over-&-over-&-over again. Many times encouraging kids to stop being tag-alongs.
Kids are just small people, they make decisions for the same reasons we do.
IMO, adults are more influenced by group-think than kids ever were.
There seems to be a contradiction here. What are the 'peers' and the 'central group' doing?
Kids are just small people, they make decisions for the same reasons we do.
I'm not so sure I agree with that part rk - Kids don't have the intelligence, wisdom nor experience that adults have when it comes to decisionmaking - not that spanking will help, but I do not think children can think of all the ramifications or consequences associated with their actions.
I'm not so sure I agree with that part rk - Kids don't have the intelligence, wisdom nor experience that adults have when it comes to decisionmaking - not that spanking will help, but I do not think children can think of all the ramifications or consequences associated with their actions.
What age are you talking about?
When a kid is under 10 then the decisions are usually much different but I think rkzenrage was talking about middle and high schoolers, which, scientifically supported, have the same thought process of adults. It is just that adults have much more experienced and know when to hold back and when not too.
The theory of cognitive development states that once a child reaches the age of 11-15, they will reach the highest possible cognitive stage, formal operation stage, and will remain in that stage throughout adulthood.
Once a person reaches the formal operation stage they technically have reached their full potential in reasoning, and then they will just gain experience and become wiser with choices. There are other variables like moral development and that but this is more or less the base for social and non-social reasoning in humans.
Theory of Cognitive Development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development
http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/MH/webpage.htmThe theory of cognitive developement also clearly states that before you reach each stage of developement you must go through certain trials. That is, there are challenges with each stage and if you don't actually have those challenges, then your cognitive development can be retarded somewhat.
and it is just a theory... :)
That's true. There are so many theories out there to explain why we are the way we are. Mostly it's just navel gazing (as I think I've mentioned in this thread already...or maybe it was another one) in my opinion.
and it is just a theory... :)
Theories in science and psychology are usually pretty accurate since they need scientific backing not to get laughed at.
It makes sense since Jewish kids are considered men at 13 and other situations like that.
Developmental theories are numerous. They are useful but not all encompassing.
What age are you talking about?
I wasn't sure what aged children rk was talking about. Since the term kid can refer to a broad range, I was stating my opinion mostly on younger children 2 - 10-ish.
Yes, but they can at least provide an outline for how people work and think. The brain is too complex to completely break down but we can get a general idea.
Theories in science and psychology are usually pretty accurate since they need scientific backing not to get laughed at.
So 1% of the population, schooled in theories that can't be proven, scratch each others backs, while the other 99% shake their heads and follow their experience and traditions.
It makes sense since Jewish kids are considered men at 13 and other situations like that.
C'mon, Jewish boys become Jewish men at 13 because they were ready to procreate, umpteen thousand years ago, when the tradition was established.
How often have we seen teenagers, especially early teens, making totally irrational choices. Although this could be because they lead such sheltered lives, compared to 100 or more years ago.
Remember too, when a child reaches his/her maximum cognitive development, they are far from all equal.
I'm not so sure I agree with that part rk - Kids don't have the intelligence, wisdom nor experience that adults have when it comes to decisionmaking - not that spanking will help, but I do not think children can think of all the ramifications or consequences associated with their actions.
Depends on the kid.
I don't many adults that made decisions well.
Per an earlier statement, authority figures should not be friends.
When a kid is under 10 then the decisions are usually much different but I think rkzenrage was talking about middle and high schoolers, which, scientifically supported, have the same thought process of adults. It is just that adults have much more experienced and know when to hold back and when not too.
Yes, and
some adults.
and it is just a theory...
Do you understand what theory means in science?
Not the same as lay language, it means it has been shown to be true under multiple circumstances and by more than one scientist (peer review).
Gravity is "just a theory".
I wasn't sure what aged children rk was talking about. Since the term kid can refer to a broad range, I was stating my opinion mostly on younger children 2 - 10-ish.
I can tell you from
multiple experiences, not just my son, a two-year-old will treat you
exactly like you treat them and does
not give a shit what you
say to them. The same is true for all kids, the younger the kid, the more true this is.
Fact.
Do you understand what theory means in science?
Not the same as lay language, it means it has been shown to be true under multiple circumstances and by more than one scientist (peer review).
Gravity is "just a theory".
"Theory" in general science is different from "theory" in psychology. There are many contradictory theories in psychology; not in empirical sciences like biology or physics.
RK- you are being called to the pronunciation thread. In Meta. We need something cleared up.
Now where in the hell is my spanking?!?
.....take the fun out of everything around here...grumgle/mumble........"theory" blah blaaah.
I am still unhappy about how I worded my earlier posts in this thread.
I could have presented the data in a better way.
Not today, but earlier.
Again, I am sorry.
So 1% of the population, schooled in theories that can't be proven, scratch each others backs, while the other 99% shake their heads and follow their experience and traditions.
Theories in psychology are there to explain why we act like we do, it doesn't change the premises of the area they are testing it on. There is usually no contradiction between experience or traditions and the explanation. Because of that, it is more of a take it or leave it scenario but these things are very helpful because to do give an idea on how the conciousness works.
RK- you are being called to the pronunciation thread. In Meta. We need something cleared up.
Now where in the hell is my spanking?!?
.....take the fun out of everything around here...grumgle/mumble........"theory" blah blaaah.
I'm married, don't look at me... though I've been naughty too. :redface:
Depends on the kid.
I can tell you from multiple experiences, not just my son, a two-year-old will treat you exactly like you treat them and does not give a shit what you say to them. The same is true for all kids, the younger the kid, the more true this is.
Fact.
Although I agree to most of your post in theory, I have to say that I disagree with this part.
After/while still parenting 3 teenagers, if there is one absolute, it is that
NOTHING is true for ALL kids. Not even close to a fact. I have to treat all my children differently, they are all individuals with different life experiences.
They are NOT ALL the same - not even close. While coaching 100's of children from 7 to 15 I find that they respond differently as well. Thats the beauty of it all - we are all different.
This is from
wiki and is a fairly good explanation of Piagets theory of cognitive development. Note that Piaget talks about environment and events shaping the way children evolve as opposed to inate stages of development which is a theory prefered by other equally respected child psychologists.
Although there is no general theory of cognitive development, one of the most historically influential theories was developed by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist (1896–1980). His theory provided many central concepts in the field of developmental psychology and concerned the growth of intelligence, which for Piaget, meant the ability to more accurately represent the world and perform logical operations on representations of concepts grounded in the world. The theory concerns the emergence and acquisition of schemata—schemes of how one perceives the world—in "developmental stages", times when children are acquiring new ways of mentally representing information. The theory is considered "constructivist", meaning that, unlike nativist theories (which describe cognitive development as the unfolding of innate knowledge and abilities) or empiricist theories (which describe cognitive development as the gradual acquisition of knowledge through experience), it asserts that we construct our cognitive abilities through self-motivated action in the world. For his development of the theory, Piaget was awarded the Erasmus Prize. Piaget divided schemes that children use to understand the world through four main stages, roughly correlated with and becoming increasingly sophisticated with age:
Sensorimotor stage (years 0–2)
Preoperational stage (years 2–7)
Concrete operational stage (years 7–11)
Formal operational stage (years 11–adulthood)Theories in psychology are there to explain why we act like we do, it doesn't change the premises of the area they are testing it on. There is usually no contradiction between experience or traditions and the explanation. Because of that, it is more of a take it or leave it scenario but these things are very helpful because to do give an idea on how the conciousness works.
"Theory" in general science is different from "theory" in psychology. There are many contradictory theories in psychology; not in empirical sciences like biology or physics.
I agree. People shop around for a psychologist that subscribes to a school (theory)they are comfortable with. They probably don't know the therapist's theory but test the comfort level. Not saying it doesn't help them just not all psychologists would.
I subscribe to the Dr Phil school... he comes on, the TV goes off.
Here is some info on nativist theorists; again from
wiki
In the field of psychology, nativism is the view that certain skills or abilities are 'native' or hard wired into the brain at birth. This is in contrast to the 'blank slate' or tabula rasa view which states that the brain has little innate ability and almost everything is learned through interaction with the environment.
When understood as an interdisciplinary field in their own right, nativist approaches are referred to collectively as nativist theorizing.
Nativism is most associated with the work of Jerry Fodor, Noam Chomsky, and Steven Pinker, who argue that we are born with certain cognitive modules (specialised genetically inherited psychological abilities) that allow us to learn and acquire certain skills (such as language). They argue that many such abilities would otherwise be greatly impaired without this genetic contribution. For example, children demonstrate a facility with acquiring spoken language but require intense training to learn to read and write. In The Blank Slate, Pinker cites this as evidence that humans have an inborn facility with speech acquisition (but not with literacy acquisition).
David Reimer, a boy unsusccessfully raised as a girl, also serves as a nativist case in point.
Psychologist Annette Karmiloff-Smith has put forward a theory known as the representational redescription or RR model of development which argues against such strict nativism and which proposes that the brain may become modular through experience within certain domains (such as social interaction or visual perception) rather than modules being genetically pre-specified.
In the United Kingdom, Stephen Laurence of the University of Sheffield initiated an interdisciplinary nativist theorizing project, entitled Innateness and the Structure of the Mind, which ran from 2001 to 2004 and was funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Board (AHRB). [1]I agree. People shop around for a psychologist that subscribes to a school (theory)they are comfortable with. They probably don't know the therapist's theory but test the comfort level. Not saying it doesn't help them just not all psychologists would.
Of course, with our current knowledge of our brain, cognitive development would be put in a category more closely to philosophy than actual science. Until we can unlock the inner working of our brains, which may be never, we will never find out the truth about our brain but can only rely on observations and manipulative testing. Both can lead to results being very accurate or misleading and it is almost impossible to distinguish the two due to unknown variables.
Then with cognitive development, there is also the fact that everyone is different and we do not know exactly what is genetically or environmentally manipulative.
Having spent 4 years in a Cog Psy dept, I can tell you that psychologists' kids are generally the most fucked up of all, so that ought to say something about theories and practice :lol:
I don't have kids, but I really can't imagine myself spanking them. I was never spanked as a child, but I do enjoy it in a sexual context, so in my personal experience spanking is a sexual thing and it is creepy for me to think about doing it to a child.
My parents never hit me, although I remember my dad coming close one time (I don't remember why). And once my mom slapped my brother because he had thrown something at her. In general, though, the punishments I grew up with were mostly lectures, being sent to my room, and not being allowed to do something I wanted to. I always cared about my parents' feelings enough that knowing that they were unhappy with me was bad enough. And I think I grew up ok -- I graduated from college early, I have a decent job and a good marriage, and I treat others with respect and consideration (I even try to on the Internet!). The one thing I never learned to do was to maintain a clean room or apartment, but I don't really think that spanking me for not cleaning my room could have changed that -- it would have just made me hate cleaning even more.
I'm married, don't look at me... though I've been naughty too. :redface:
OOooh....it did look like it was directed at you didn't you? :redface:
Really.......just jokes....
I need to be more careful.....:eek:
[youtube]4OakGQWFHPg[/youtube]
Hmmmm...cause God told him to do it huh?
See! I knew God was on my side!
He also says if you child says no to dash them down on rocks and to sell them as a slave if you want to.
Holy shit! I wish I'd known about that one a bit sooner.
That guy is a total whackjob! Lemme get this straight - Lets not spank with our hand - lets use a f*ckin weapon! Thats great, just great. :eyebrow:
I was never spanked as a child, but I do enjoy it in a sexual context, so in my personal experience spanking is a sexual thing and it is creepy for me to think about doing it to a child.
this made me go, hmm, Hime. It's topsy turvy!
Actually, I'm with Hime on this one.
Actually, so am I. The buttocks are an erogenous zone and stimulating them often evokes sexual arousal. It's not something most people consider when spanking a child, but is yet another reason I am strongly against spanking.
Actually, so am I. The buttocks are an erogenous zone and stimulating them often evokes sexual arousal. It's not something most people consider when spanking a child, but is yet another reason I am strongly against spanking.
Is that because you don't want to bring up a child that developes an interest in S & M?
Spanking appropriate????
In my opinion a whole beat down is necessary...
Sorry kinda old clip, but I just saw it.
[youtube]q6JTkaT4KAc[/youtube]
That's a demonic possession. Has to be.
Looks like a a chip off the ol' block to me. Monkey see monkey do, etc...
God I'm glad I'm not a breeder. That kid would make me think seriously about a very late-term abortion.
Every time I have talked to professionals or seen them in regards to problem kids (not mine). I have never seen them state that a child that hits should be hit. It just reinforces the behavior, that violence is a method of solving problems.
Watch one of the nanny shows... they are often just as bad.
They change the behavior in a few days, never with hitting the children and often with multiple kids.
[youtube]t4HorgEMV6o[/youtube]
UK Nanny and Superstar Stella Reid has been sorting out US kids for 17 years and has now returned to home ground to battle problems with UK families.
The TV Nanny (Nanny 911- Fox TV and ITV2) believes that eating together as a family could change the health of the nation.
Latest research from Aunt Bessie's reveals that children who sit down with their parents at mealtimes are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer depression and anxiety, or to develop heart disease, obesity or eating disorders.
They are also more likely to do well at school and have high self-esteem.
And yet the research reveals that the number of families in the UK that sit down together, even once a week for a traditional Sunday dinner, continues to fall.
Now Nanny Stella has launched a new campaign entitled 'Sit Down Sunday', with the aim of calling a halt to the erosion of family mealtimes.
[youtube]CMu0wBNkNi0[/youtube]
I don't hit my kids. I don't hit my pets, parents, friends, or anyone else for that matter. It's just not my nature, nor something I want to condone. Power and might do not make right in my miniworld. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my kids are pretty mild and relatively easy-going, so that a situation has never (yet?) arisen in that I felt spanking was an appropriate way to handle it. Or react to it.
That said, I find it equally disturbing that other forms of manipulation are employed as a means to get children to "obey," namely methods advocated by The Nanny et al. Bribes, rewards, et cetera are no better IMO. YMMV.
I share her support for a return to family, including more family meals because I think a sense of responsibility to family is key in getting family members to cooperate and co-exist harmoniously. Normal personality quirks and occasional outbursts aside.
I share her support for a return to family, including more family meals because I think a sense of responsibility to family is key in getting family members to cooperate and co-exist harmoniously. Normal personality quirks and occasional outbursts aside.
Well put. If you feel close as a family, I think you're far more likely to grow up feeling a sense of mutual responsibility.
Our meals together and the time that I spend reading to him and singing him to sleep are times that I cannot imagine not having... I just can't... I choose not to think of the day when he does not want it any more.
That someone would intentionally give that up for any reason is inconceivable to me. I use that word literally.
Sometimes I cannot due to pain (meaning I physically cannot... I often participate when I should not), meds, being in the hospital. When the time comes and I miss dinner with my wife and son and bedtime it feels like trauma to me.
I can't do so much with him that others can do, so these things are more important to me.
Also, as for discipline, I cannot chase him down and would not be able to physically intimidate him if I wanted to, even though I would never want to.
I have never felt the need or at a loss for not using these "tools".
I view my role as a parent as both nurturer and mentor. For instance, if my son gets hurt (physically or emotionally) I comfort him, but I also talk with him about possible ways of dealing with it in a constructive way. We have lots of talks about lots of things. He learns to listen and to communicate. So, when he needs correction, it is less like punishment and more like a learning opportunity. He learns self awareness and acceptance. This has worked well for us. It may be because his personality jibes well with the method, or just that he has adjusted to my methods. I dunno, but it works for us.
I don't hit my pets
I cuff my cats when they are out of line, but only immediately in a cause and effect way (ie trying to jump up & get at my dinner). ey, it's what their mother would do.
That said, I find it equally disturbing that other forms of manipulation are employed as a means to get children to "obey," namely methods advocated by The Nanny et al. Bribes, rewards, et cetera are no better IMO. YMMV.
But surely any kind of reward in that sense is manipulation - a smile, a kiss, a "Well done!" or just, "Thank you." Children need positive reinforcement and if this means a star chart with a reward at the end for ongoing good behaviour it is a useful lesson - the world in general rewards sustained efforts in terms of grades, qualifications, promotion etc.
But surely any kind of reward in that sense is manipulation - a smile, a kiss, a "Well done!" or just, "Thank you." Children need positive reinforcement and if this means a star chart with a reward at the end for ongoing good behaviour it is a useful lesson - the world in general rewards sustained efforts in terms of grades, qualifications, promotion etc.
I think there is a distinction between *recognition* and *reward*. And I agree that any of your examples could fall within either category, depending upon how it was employed. I think (for me) the main difference lies with intent; namely, is my smile/kiss or are my words
contingent upon the child doing what
I want the child to do? I'm trying to think of an example to illustrate my point better than my words are attempting to -
I don't think (all) kids need positive reinforcement; I do think all kids (as humans) crave
recognition. Positive reinforcement would fall under the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" umbrella as far as recognition goes. PR is one form of recognition, albeit a more manipulative one IMO. Manipulation isn't altogether a bad thing; we all do it to some letter, as parents if nothing else.
There is no one size fits all approach to interacting with children. Or employees. Or people in general. Different personalities and environments call for different strategies. You're correct that the world rewards sustained efforts; I think that is a good thing in some regards, and a frightening thing in others. I personally favor intrinsic motivation over extrinsic; I think my children are better off for it. I feel that I am. YMMV.
I have to get supper ready. I'll edit with an example, when one comes to mind.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/14/nfm.spanking/index.html
Study: Spanking kids leads to long-term bad behavior
August 14, 1997
Web posted at: 9:37 p.m. EDT (0137 GMT)
CHICAGO (CNN) -- In the long run, it turns out that sparing the rod may not spoil the child after all. Indeed, according to a study released Thursday, the opposite may be true: Spanking a child may produce long-term ill effects.
Based on interviews with the mothers of about 3,000 children, researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire found that corporal punishment is counterproductive, resulting in more antisocial behavior by children in later years.
The results are
always the same.
Never believe those New Hampshire hippies. The same mothers that say they never spanked their kids and they turned out just great, are the same ones saying their children never do wrong.... when the cops are kicking down the door.
You know, with the movement away from spanking children coinciding with all these behavioural problems in children, you surely must ask yourself what kind of drugs these researchers are on to say that spanking is bad for kids.
If you think YOUR kids are better off not being spanked, good for you, just stop trying to pretend you're a perfect parent compared to all the rest of us normal people trying to raise kids. (That's for all you hippies that say they don't spank their kids)
I say bring back corporal punishment in school too. That'd fix the little buggers right up. Give them something to worry about next time they feel like giving the teacher a bit of lip. Maybe then people wouldn't be having discussions about whether teachers should be allowed to taze kids in classrooms.
I say bring back corporal punishment in school too. That'd fix the little buggers right up. Give them something to worry about next time they feel like giving the teacher a bit of lip. Maybe then people wouldn't be having discussions about whether teachers should be allowed to taze kids in classrooms.
Why not compromise? At my school, the asst. principal was supposed to have had an electric paddle.
What an excellent suggestion Steve. Why didn't I think of that myself? :alien:
Good post merc... that the butt is an erogenous zone is another reason not to.... now I'm off to get my paddle. I've been very bad!
Kid's behavior in schools has nothing to do with not hitting them, that would just make things worse.
It has to do with lazy/uninvolved parents who spend fifteen min a day with their kids and expect others to raise/teach their kids the things they are supposed to. Not a teacher's job.
No teacher will hit my kid, I can tell you that.
Well, you deal with the lazy univolved parents, I'll belt all the little brats into line. I'm quite happy to make that 'my job'. :)
All it does is piss them off and they plot their revenge... I did.
Just because you did, doesnt mean everyone will.
Mine dont, mine know where the line is now and they try not to cross it.
No Ducks, you don't understand. Not only are all children exactly alike, they are in fact all exactly like rkzenrage.
Childhood Spanking and Increased Antisocial Behavior
About 90 percent of parents use some form of corporal punishment on toddlers, and about 50 percent continue to use it during the early teen years, despite a growing body of evidence that it does not positively affect a child's behavior and may actually result in increased aggressive or delinquent behaviors. Straus and colleagues examined the relationship between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior in children.
A sample of 807 mothers with children between the ages of six and nine years was drawn from an original cohort of women who were part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Supplement conducted at Ohio State University. The mothers completed an antisocial behavior (ASB) scale that described their child's behavior over the preceding three months. Descriptive items in the ASB scale included the following: "cheats or tells lies," "bullies or is cruel or mean to others," "does not feel sorry after misbehaving," "breaks things deliberately," "is disobedient at school" and "has trouble getting along with teachers." The items were scored as "often true," "sometimes true" and "not true."
Categories ranging from no spanking in the past week to spanking 15 or more times in the past week were used to assess the frequency of spanking. For the purpose of statistical analysis, the numbers were broken into four categories of how many times the child was spanked in one week: zero (451 children), one time (160), two times (114) and three or more times (82). Using the ASB scale, data were collected at baseline and again two years later. The study was controlled for several independent variables, including sex, race, socioeconomic status, cognitive stimulation and parental emotional support.
Spanking was significantly related to the ASB score at baseline and two years later. In the zero-frequency spanking group, the ASB score actually declined four points from baseline. In contrast, the ASB score increased 14 points in the group of children whose mothers reported spanking them three or more times at baseline. The consistent finding was that the more frequent the spanking at the beginning of the study, the greater the ASB scores two years later. The trend toward increased ASB scores was stronger in boys than in girls and also in American children of European descent compared with minority children. The tendency also persisted regardless of the extent to which parents provided cognitive stimulation and emotional support to their children.
The authors conclude that corporal punishment or spanking is a statistically significant predictor of subsequent antisocial behavior, even in children who may be spanked only once a week. They believe their data show a "dose response" to corporal punishment, starting with young children. The more frequently spanking is used, the longer its negative effects last and the greater the likelihood that it will induce behavior problems. They further suggest that reducing or completely eliminating corporal punishment would be beneficial to society, since antisocial behavior is associated with violence and more serious crimes committed by teenagers and adults.
JEFFREY T. KIRCHNER, D.O.
Straus MA, et al. Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;151:761-7.
even in children who may be spanked only once a week.
Jesus fuck, "only" once a week? If your 6-9 year old child is committing an offense worthy of serious punishment once a week, I don't care what sort of discipline you are using, it obviously isn't working.
Agreed! (with clod) :alien:
Even though I am a proponent for the odd clout, I would have to say it doesn't happen too often around our place. It'd be lucky to be once a year.
So wait a minute, .....in the study RKZ quotes, the parents doing the spanking/non-spanking were also the ones assessing the children's behaviour.......? ...and there was a correlation between the perceived "bad" behaviour and the spanking? Well fuck me, who'da thunk it? :lol:
I'm sure the report goes on to prove causality and test for bias in parents perception of behaviour etc......spanking is a predictor of bad behaviour :lol: FAIL
and I also agree about those frequencies! They need a category for kids who are being spanked 15 times a week??????
I tell you what. Your arm would be pretty tired if they were all floggings wouldn't it?
I was thinking the same thing. You would look like the guy from Lady In The Water... and the kid's hip would be displaced.
That is abuse.
I would agree that if you had to hit your kid 15 times a week (or even more) you're doing something wrong and have done so right from the start.
Get some help!
Even once a week is pretty excessive
agreed! errr...did you look at the preceeding posts ducks?
I tell you what. Your arm would be pretty tired if they were all floggings wouldn't it?
Yeah, damnit -you'd have to use your other arm to spank them for making the first one hurt....
bloody brats! It's all their fault we look like amazon women!!!
bloody brats! It's all their fault we look like amazon women!!!
mono-boobed?
agreed! errr...did you look at the preceeding posts ducks?
I did look at the proceeding posts!