Teen Parents/ Parenting [Archive]

Tsukasa Buddha

17th April 2011, 02:36 PM

Is it wrong? Think about it, not more then 200+ years ago, it was natural for a 12/13 year old girl to have an arranged marrage, 400+ years ago, most girls were moms around the age of 15. They all seemed to turn out fine for the most part, seeing if the country they were in wasnt in an economic downfall...

Yes, the fact that people back then believed that it wasn't possible to rape one's wife and women were denied education and the ability to live on their own... Other than all that, they turned out fine.

The reason they(teen parents frowned apon)are in bad shape today is because of how long we go to school, versus what we have in the past, and we cant even work till we are 16, with a permit that doesnt give a good enough check(US is having very bad job issues atm if you havent noticed).

Most careers today require more education than knowing one's ABCs. And I honestly don't think that is why it is frowned upon. I think it has more to do with "loose women" or trepidation for the future of the child.

Now for Parenting, yesterday, I saw a woman raise here voice, and wave her hand at her 7 year oldish, for acting up in a public place, (like damaging stuff, and screaming his lungs out), and her child was taken away from her by a nearby police officer for "endangering the welfare of a child"....BS!!!!

Yes, I also doubt the veracity of this tale.

I personally believe its disciplin to a point. As long as there isnt blood, you should be able to hit your child for doing wrong, otherwise we are endangering the welfare of out society. Dont get me wrong, but I realized that the reason these laws are being passed are because these idiots remember their parents backhanding them across the room, and the second one of those guys get into power "no more child abuse" =p.

Thank you for poisoning the well. Child abuse is not the same as corporeal punishment, though a parent can take it that far. Personally, I am "against" corporeal punishment because my parents and extended family didn't use it, and as such I know one can raise a properly adjusted child without resorting to such things.

I cant help but laugh at what is happening to our country, and this is one of the reasons, along with selling our jobs to China (coughWalmartcough).

Yes, 'twould be preferable that the teenaged parents could leave school early to work their lives away in factories.

Giraffe107

17th April 2011, 04:01 PM

As long as there isnt blood, you should be able to hit your child for doing wrong

Are you freaking kidding?

Ryokan

17th April 2011, 04:56 PM

I personally believe its disciplin to a point. As long as there isnt blood, you should be able to hit your child for doing wrong, otherwise we are endangering the welfare of out society. Dont get me wrong, but I realized that the reason these laws are being passed are because these idiots remember their parents backhanding them across the room, and the second one of those guys get into power "no more child abuse" =p. I cant help but laugh at what is happening to our country, and this is one of the reasons, along with selling our jobs to China (coughWalmartcough).

Why just kids? Surely we should be allowed to physically punish adults as well? No more prisons, just give them 100 lashes in public! Hell yeah!

Or not.

In my country, Norway, corporal punishment of children is strictly forbidden. Not even a swat on the bottom as punishment is allowed.

And I think that's a good thing. No person gets better from getting physical pain. And as you may notice, Norwegian society isn't collapsing because of this. Crime is low, murder rate near zero, we haven't experienced a recession, etc.

I think if you believe if only we were allowed to beat up kids, then everything would be better, you're not only wrong but you're looking for simple solutions.

Alt+F4

17th April 2011, 06:53 PM

....seeing how the average marrage last maybe 10 years, suicide rates off the charts, and every mental hospital in NY state is full...

Cite? Of course not.

I'm not gonna feed this troll.

Meadmaker

17th April 2011, 08:17 PM

As to parenting, the moment you raise your hand to strike a kid is the moment your mental faculties are proven inadequate. You are unfit to raise children in our societies.

And yet, you were fit to raise them for the first few hundred thousand years of societal existence.

I'm no big fan of beating children, but if it were all that bad, we wouldn't have survived to dominate the planet. It's hard for me to get all worked up about a practice that has been part of human society since the dawn of time.

As for the first part of the OP, asking if teen parenting is wrong. I don't think it's "wrong", I just don't think teenagers who get pregnant, or who sire children are generally happy. Ask them 30 years later if they are happy that they had children at fifteen. If the majority say yes, that tells you something, but it would surprise me.

gph

17th April 2011, 08:25 PM

And yet, you were fit to raise them for the first few hundred thousand years of societal existence.

I'm no big fan of beating children, but if it were all that bad, we wouldn't have survived to dominate the planet.Is that an argument or a joke?

By that logic having sex with them mustn't be all that bad either because, well, here we are dominating the planet.

???

Toke

17th April 2011, 08:33 PM

And yet, you were fit to raise them for the first few hundred thousand years of societal existence.

I'm no big fan of beating children, but if it were all that bad, we wouldn't have survived to dominate the planet. It's hard for me to get all worked up about a practice that has been part of human society since the dawn of time.

What kind of data are there on parenting for more than a few millennia ago?
Human societies have been generally nasty for most of history, it could have something to do with upbringing.

As for the first part of the OP, asking if teen parenting is wrong. I don't think it's "wrong", I just don't think teenagers who get pregnant, or who sire children are generally happy. Ask them 30 years later if they are happy that they had children at fifteen. If the majority say yes, that tells you something, but it would surprise me.

To the best of my knowledge teenagers makes comparatively poor parents in our current society. It sounds like a great idea to wait until you have the necessary education to support yourself and the kids.

quadraginta

17th April 2011, 09:10 PM

Is it wrong? Think about it, not more then 200+ years ago, it was natural for a 12/13 year old girl to have an arranged marrage, 400+ years ago, most girls were moms around the age of 15.

<snip>

Opinions? Explanations? Anything?

For one thing, some of your premises might merit further investigation.

This subject came up somewhat tangentially in another thread awhile back. Out of curiosity I did some 'quick 'n dirty' research, since I had a volume of family genealogy within reach.

It covers my father's family from 1640, when the first in the line from England settled in Newbury, MA, through 1882. I picked a dozen or so of the earliest marriages in the book at random and tallied the ages of the brides. I'm not going to do it over again right now, but as memory serves (and somewhat to my surprise) only one or two were even under eighteen, and the median age was closer to the mid-twenties than the 'teens. A few were closer to thirty for their first marriage.

I repeated the exercise for the mid and late 1700s with similar results.

These were all pretty much salt-of-the-earth type farmers and a few merchants, sailors and soldiers ... as typical a cross-section of colonial America as could be asked for.

The child bride was not quite as common as we are prone to believe these days.

Meadmaker

17th April 2011, 09:14 PM

Is that an argument or a joke?

By that logic having sex with them mustn't be all that bad either because, well, here we are dominating the planet.

???

I'm pretty sure that having sex with pre-pubescent children has always been considered abnornmal behavior. I'm willing to listen to evidence that any society has encouraged or tolerated it, but I don't think there will be any. As for having sex with post-pubescents, see the portion of the OP that refers to teen parenting.

Meadmaker

17th April 2011, 09:20 PM

What kind of data are there on parenting for more than a few millennia ago?

To be fair, not much. I'm just guessing that since the records that we have indicate that corporal punishment is normal, that it has been that way ever since the development of modern humans.

Human societies have been generally nasty for most of history, it could have something to do with upbringing.

Human life has been generally nasty. I don't encourage spanking or anything more harsh, but, as I said, I'm not willing to call someone a "bad parent" just because they do it. A lot of us who were spanked turned out ok, and that is true for more generations going back in time than we can remember. It really can't be all that bad.

gph

17th April 2011, 09:23 PM

I'm pretty sure that having sex with pre-pubescent children has always been considered abnornmal behavior. I'm willing to listen to evidence that any society has encouraged or tolerated it, but I don't think there will be any. As for having sex with post-pubescents, see the portion of the OP that refers to teen parenting.That's not the point.

My point is you can plug just about anything into your logic of "if it were all that bad, we wouldn't have survived to dominate the planet". Rape, infanticide, you name it, we are dominating now therefore they mustn't be all that bad.

Meadmaker

17th April 2011, 09:34 PM

That's not the point.

My point is you can plug just about anything into your logic of "if it were all that bad, we wouldn't have survived to dominate the planet". Rape, infanticide, you name it, we are dominating now therefore they mustn't be all that bad.

You could plug in just about anything, but it wouldn't make sense to do so. Perhaps I was unclear about why I asserted that it couldn't have been all that bad.

My assertion is that anything that was considered normal, typical, behavior across a wide variety of human societies can't be all that bad. If darned near everyone has done it throughout history, it really is probably ok. It might even be beneficial. At the very least, those elements that have always been considered normal must not be horrible, because if they were, we wouldn't have been so successful as a species.

Corporal punishment is one of those things that has been considered normal, typical, behavior, practiced by darned near everyone. It really can't be all that bad.

Rape and infanticide have always been a part of every society, but they have not been considered normal behavior. Murder and theft have been always part of every society, but they've been discouraged and punished, unlike striking children, which has been encouraged in most cases and tolerated in all, at least until lately.

Pythonic

17th April 2011, 09:36 PM

Not in and of itself, but with the demands of society and the extended adolescence that an advance civilization creates, it is. When adult responsibilities were much simpler, a younger person could handle the demands of adulthood. That is not true anymore. Now it takes more years of maturity to be in a position to manage one's life successfully in the working world. High school and college has extended adolescence, delaying adulthood out of necessity. So in today's world it is absolutely wrong to bestow such a responsibility on a teen.

Young girls absolutely need to be protected.

Ryokan

17th April 2011, 09:44 PM

My assertion is that anything that was considered normal, typical, behavior across a wide variety of human societies can't be all that bad. If darned near everyone has done it throughout history, it really is probably ok. It might even be beneficial. At the very least, those elements that have always been considered normal must not be horrible, because if they were, we wouldn't have been so successful as a species.

Like slavery? Or corporal punishment of adults for breaking laws? Or capital punishment? All these have been seen as normal and typical in human history, up until very recently. Are they not horrible? (I know some Americans will disagree on the capital punishment, but the rest of the civilized world has abandoned it.)

But as I asked earlier, if corporal punishment of children is a good thing, why not corporal punishment of adults? Why is it ok to beat children, but not adults?

JJM 777

17th April 2011, 09:50 PM

Are you really saying that 13 year-olds would be happier if they could work menial jobs and breed as early as possible? How would they be able to fulfill their goals if this was the case. (Unless of course, their goals included raising a houseful of kids on minimum wage?)
I see other reasons than this to recommend teenagers to refrain from making babies.

But this reason presented by you is no reason at all, really, because you are not talking about something that people would avoid generally, if teenagers didn´t get pregnant. Low socioeconomical status is a fact of life (in non-Socialist countries), an unavoidable fate of a large part of the population. Minimum wage and menial jobs are the real fate of large masses of population, the way how the society is designed now. If there is something wrong with that, then you should adopt Socialism and make it illegal to pay low salaries to anyone. If you are not willing to do that, then this social stratification is acceptable for you, please be so honest as not to make a hand-picked cherry out of teenager moms.

And besides, pregnancy is not 9 months idle sitting, it is possible to remain in working life, not to speak of studying online courses on a laptop at home, for most of the pregnancy time. Then baby care centers are available to take care of the thing during office hours if the mom goes to school or to work. Pregnancy does not necessarily delay one´s studies as much as military service does, which is obligatory in many countries and nobody whines about the 1 year delay in the education of men.

gph

17th April 2011, 09:55 PM

You could plug in just about anything, but it wouldn't make sense to do so. Perhaps I was unclear about why I asserted that it couldn't have been all that bad.

My assertion is that anything that was considered normal, typical, behavior across a wide variety of human societies can't be all that bad. If darned near everyone has done it throughout history, it really is probably ok. It might even be beneficial. At the very least, those elements that have always been considered normal must not be horrible, because if they were, we wouldn't have been so successful as a species.

Corporal punishment is one of those things that has been considered normal, typical, behavior, practiced by darned near everyone. It really can't be all that bad.

Rape and infanticide have always been a part of every society, but they have not been considered normal behavior. Murder and theft have been always part of every society, but they've been discouraged and punished, unlike striking children, which has been encouraged in most cases and tolerated in all, at least until lately.Your expanded explanation makes more sense though I don't think "because it has always been done" is a valid reason to condone anything today. In the past people did lots of things we now consider stupid, harmful and/or immoral.

There's lots of well adjusted people walking the earth today that were never hit as a child and no doubt lots that were hit. The former flies in the face of the supposed virtues of corporal punishment.

Is it acceptable for one adult to hit another to achieve a goal? If not, why not?

JJM 777

17th April 2011, 09:56 PM

So you see them as possibly fit to parent in the future. Ok, but when they are hitting their kid they most certainly are not.
Unnecessary cruelty is simply sad and idiotic, but children are no philosophers either, you cannot always talk them to do what must be done.

As an analogy we can think of taming a horse for equestrian purposes. Causing unnecessary suffering to a horse would be illegal, and that is not exactly what is happening either. Subtle and carefully restricted use of pain tames the horse to understand what is expected from it and bend to the will of the rider.

gph

17th April 2011, 10:01 PM

Ryokan

17th April 2011, 10:12 PM

Unnecessary cruelty is simply sad and idiotic, but children are no philosophers either, you cannot always talk them to do what must be done.

As an analogy we can think of taming a horse for equestrian purposes. Causing unnecessary suffering to a horse would be illegal, and that is not exactly what is happening either. Subtle and carefully restricted use of pain tames the horse to understand what is expected from it and bend to the will of the rider.

And if there was an alternative method of training horses that gave the same results, would you then condone pain for training? Especially if you knew that some horse trainers overused pain and created mentally imbalanced horses?

Do you think children from countries that forbid corporal punishment for children are more prone to be ill-adjusted than children from countries that allow it?

To help you answer, you can find a list of countries that have banned corporal punishment of children here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home

Ryokan

17th April 2011, 10:18 PM

A report from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior.

The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults. Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.

Source here. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/723)

Nihilianth

17th April 2011, 10:29 PM

I'm pretty sure that having sex with pre-pubescent children has always been considered abnornmal behavior. I'm willing to listen to evidence that any society has encouraged or tolerated it, but I don't think there will be any. As for having sex with post-pubescents, see the portion of the OP that refers to teen parenting.

Jumping in real quick.

I've heard of an island somewhere in the South Pacific in which the "elders" of the community were expected to show and teach children about their sexual parts, the proceed to show them "how to use them."

I forget the name of the society, and the name of the island. I only remember it was in the South Pacific. Could probably Google it, but am too lazy to do so right now.

Nihilianth

17th April 2011, 10:34 PM

To be fair, not much. I'm just guessing that since the records that we have indicate that corporal punishment is normal, that it has been that way ever since the development of modern humans.

Human life has been generally nasty. I don't encourage spanking or anything more harsh, but, as I said, I'm not willing to call someone a "bad parent" just because they do it. A lot of us who were spanked turned out ok, and that is true for more generations going back in time than we can remember. It really can't be all that bad.

In my experience, my parents had five children. I have an older brother, an older sister, an identical twin brother, and a younger sister.

All 5 of us got a good whack once or twice in our lives. That was all that was needed. Anytime my parents told us to do something, we did it without question!

All four of the five of us are married (my younger sister is engaged,) we all have children, with the exception of my little sis, we all graduated from college with honors, and my older siblings each had a 4.0 GPA. We all have careers, or are starting real careers.

Anecdotal evidence: Yes.
Evidence that my parents were great parent: Yes.

In conclusion, my experience has been a rather positive one, "despite" the fact that we all were smacked a few times at a young age. Go figure. :)

The Fool

17th April 2011, 10:38 PM

what confuses me is if I can assault my child why can't I assault my wife?

any thoughts?

Professor Yaffle

18th April 2011, 02:02 AM

Jumping in real quick.

I've heard of an island somewhere in the South Pacific in which the "elders" of the community were expected to show and teach children about their sexual parts, the proceed to show them "how to use them."

I forget the name of the society, and the name of the island. I only remember it was in the South Pacific. Could probably Google it, but am too lazy to do so right now.

Are you thinking of the sexual abuse that occurred on Pitcairn Island?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 04:19 AM

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 04:30 AM

Like slavery? Or corporal punishment of adults for breaking laws? Or capital punishment? All these have been seen as normal and typical in human history, up until very recently. Are they not horrible? (I know some Americans will disagree on the capital punishment, but the rest of the civilized world has abandoned it.)

But as I asked earlier, if corporal punishment of children is a good thing, why not corporal punishment of adults? Why is it ok to beat children, but not adults?

Of your examples, only slavery gives me any pause. I'm glad I live in a jurisdiction (Michigan) with no capital punishment, but, yes, I will say that capital punishment cannot be all that bad, or it would not have been the norm throughout history. As for corporal punishment of adults, I'm unconvinced that it is necessarily more cruel than incarceration for significant lengths of time. Therefore, I would say that it really can't be all that bad.

Slavery is somewhat more difficult to refute as a counterexample of something that appears to be normal in human history, but which I would condemn as immoral. I would note, however, that slavery is far less universal than your other examples. What has been universal is a highly stratified society, with those at the bottom having a very bad time of it. However, their condition was rarely comparable to what Africans experienced in the United States. When we think of "slavery" that's what Americans think of, but the experience of other people whose condition is translated into English as "slaves" was rarely that horrific.

quadraginta

18th April 2011, 05:56 AM

Of your examples, only slavery gives me any pause. I'm glad I live in a jurisdiction (Michigan) with no capital punishment, but, yes, I will say that capital punishment cannot be all that bad, or it would not have been the norm throughout history. As for corporal punishment of adults, I'm unconvinced that it is necessarily more cruel than incarceration for significant lengths of time. Therefore, I would say that it really can't be all that bad.

Slavery is somewhat more difficult to refute as a counterexample of something that appears to be normal in human history, but which I would condemn as immoral. I would note, however, that slavery is far less universal than your other examples. What has been universal is a highly stratified society, with those at the bottom having a very bad time of it. However, their condition was rarely comparable to what Africans experienced in the United States. When we think of "slavery" that's what Americans think of, but the experience of other people whose condition is translated into English as "slaves" was rarely that horrific.

I don't think this POV is going to get a lot of traction.

For one thing I believe your views on slavery are a bit sugar-coated. Yes, there were societies where the concept did not exactly take the form of the brutal, hopeless chattel slavery common in the Americas, but I don't know that those were particularly predominant. I suspect that might be a case of cherry picking.

Other examples are also easy to point out. War for the purpose of material profit has also been a norm in human history, and the institution of international efforts to discourage it is a very recent development which actually flies in the face of what was generally considered to be a righteous cause, at least by the victors. Remember "Manifest Destiny"? That wasn't very long ago, historically speaking, and was a rather mild interpretation of the 'might makes right' philosophy even for its time.

In and of itself, merely being an historical "norm" does not confer any sort of sanction or affirmation, or even any hint about utility. This is what social progress is all about. Religious intolerance has also been a norm for most of human history, but I doubt many people will try and justify it that way or argue that it must therefore some be beneficial or even harmless.

TragicMonkey

18th April 2011, 06:14 AM

Yes, people used to get married and reproduce at much earlier ages than is currently the norm.

They also didn't move out of the family home, but lived with one of the couple's parents, siblings, and grandparents for their entire lives. It's far easier to have children early when you have a house full of relatives to help out raising, caring for them, and providing economic assistance.

Nihilianth

18th April 2011, 07:50 AM

Are you thinking of the sexual abuse that occurred on Pitcairn Island?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

Quite possibly. It does sound quite familiar. Damn, I need to find the person who was talking about this culture. It was an old professor of mine from my college days.

Pythonic

18th April 2011, 08:07 AM

what confuses me is if I can assault my child why can't I assault my wife?

any thoughts?

Only if your wife was a bad girl, is still in her school uniform, and you spank gently.

23_Tauri

18th April 2011, 08:13 AM

Anyone know where the troll author of the OP has got to?

Rasmus

18th April 2011, 08:15 AM

what confuses me is if I can assault my child why can't I assault my wife?

any thoughts?

Certainly: It's the faults of your wife's parents. They obviously didn't beat her enough as a child, otherwise she would be better behaved now. I assume the technique becomes less effective, if not ineffective, later in life unless carried correctly in the formative years.

If you assaulted your wife it would case her necessary harm, since a good trashing simply no longer provides the utility you hope for.

Even though women and children are clearly not real people as such, we don't want to cause them any unnecessary grief, do we?

joobie

18th April 2011, 08:19 AM

Anyone know where the troll author of the OP has got to?

i suspect he has classes (high school) for at least a couple more hours today.

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 08:39 AM

I don't think this POV is going to get a lot of traction.

For one thing I believe your views on slavery are a bit sugar-coated. Yes, there were societies where the concept did not exactly take the form of the brutal, hopeless chattel slavery common in the Americas, but I don't know that those were particularly predominant. I suspect that might be a case of cherry picking.

Other examples are also easy to point out. War for the purpose of material profit has also been a norm in human history, and the institution of international efforts to discourage it is a very recent development which actually flies in the face of what was generally considered to be a righteous cause, at least by the victors. Remember "Manifest Destiny"? That wasn't very long ago, historically speaking, and was a rather mild interpretation of the 'might makes right' philosophy even for its time.

In and of itself, merely being an historical "norm" does not confer any sort of sanction or affirmation, or even any hint about utility. This is what social progress is all about. Religious intolerance has also been a norm for most of human history, but I doubt many people will try and justify it that way or argue that it must therefore some be beneficial or even harmless.

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must be good. If it were the topic of the OP, I might be inclined to try to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must serve a purpose, but then I might find myself in a situation where I'm defending religious intolerance, and I really don't want to do that.

So, my point was that this is the norm, an awful lot of us experienced it, and didn't think we were harmed. It's hard to grasp that if it were such an awful thing, even many of the "victims" would say that it's a good idea.

After having children of my own, there has been only one thing that I can think of that has changed dramatically from my preconceived notions about how children "ought" to be raised. I have gained a thorough appreciation of the full implications of the fact that children don't have an "off" switch. It's all very easy to sit back and say what ought to be done in any given situation, but there are times when parents really have stuff that has to get done and they have a child who thinks that it is far more important that the parent follow the child's agenda, instead of vice-versa. In those circumstances, if the worst thing that happens to the child is that it experiences a certain degree of temporary pain and/or fear, I'm not going to call someone a bad parent, even if I think there was a better way to handle the situation. It would be all very well to talk about what a perfect person would do given an optimal situation and plenty of time to deal with the circumstances. Sadly, parents don't have time to call a committee meeting of child care experts to discuss how best to get Johnny to school on time. Sometimes, a threat of pain might be the best you can think of, and the threat will not be effective unless it is occasionally carried out.

JJM 777

18th April 2011, 08:50 AM

Do you think children from countries that forbid corporal punishment for children are more prone to be ill-adjusted than children from countries that allow it?
Difficult to say how much a law quite recently agreed by a few politicians actually has changed de facto reality in people´s homes.

Also ill-adjusted is a vague concept, modern youth is becoming difficult and outright dangerous to handle for teachers in upper classes of elementary school.

quadraginta

18th April 2011, 09:14 AM

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must be good. If it were the topic of the OP, I might be inclined to try to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must serve a purpose, but then I might find myself in a situation where I'm defending religious intolerance, and I really don't want to do that.

So, my point was that this is the norm, an awful lot of us experienced it, and didn't think we were harmed. It's hard to grasp that if it were such an awful thing, even many of the "victims" would say that it's a good idea.

After having children of my own, there has been only one thing that I can think of that has changed dramatically from my preconceived notions about how children "ought" to be raised. I have gained a thorough appreciation of the full implications of the fact that children don't have an "off" switch. It's all very easy to sit back and say what ought to be done in any given situation, but there are times when parents really have stuff that has to get done and they have a child who thinks that it is far more important that the parent follow the child's agenda, instead of vice-versa. In those circumstances, if the worst thing that happens to the child is that it experiences a certain degree of temporary pain and/or fear, I'm not going to call someone a bad parent, even if I think there was a better way to handle the situation. It would be all very well to talk about what a perfect person would do given an optimal situation and plenty of time to deal with the circumstances. Sadly, parents don't have time to call a committee meeting of child care experts to discuss how best to get Johnny to school on time. Sometimes, a threat of pain might be the best you can think of, and the threat will not be effective unless it is occasionally carried out.

Grown-ups don't have an "off switch" either. What circumstances make it okay to give them a swat when you're in a hurry and haven't got time to explain things?

Somehow I suspect that this would not be a management technique which would find acceptance in most work environments.

Children are not suffering from some sort of diminished capacity which precludes communication. They simply have less data to work with. If you find yourself resorting to pain as a communication device, most especially if you are in a hurry, it reflects more on your own ability to express yourself than it does on the child's ability to comprehend.

Nihilianth

18th April 2011, 10:39 AM

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must be good. If it were the topic of the OP, I might be inclined to try to defend the general proposition that if we've always done it that way, it must serve a purpose, but then I might find myself in a situation where I'm defending religious intolerance, and I really don't want to do that.

So, my point was that this is the norm, an awful lot of us experienced it, and didn't think we were harmed. It's hard to grasp that if it were such an awful thing, even many of the "victims" would say that it's a good idea.

After having children of my own, there has been only one thing that I can think of that has changed dramatically from my preconceived notions about how children "ought" to be raised. I have gained a thorough appreciation of the full implications of the fact that children don't have an "off" switch. It's all very easy to sit back and say what ought to be done in any given situation, but there are times when parents really have stuff that has to get done and they have a child who thinks that it is far more important that the parent follow the child's agenda, instead of vice-versa. In those circumstances, if the worst thing that happens to the child is that it experiences a certain degree of temporary pain and/or fear, I'm not going to call someone a bad parent, even if I think there was a better way to handle the situation. It would be all very well to talk about what a perfect person would do given an optimal situation and plenty of time to deal with the circumstances. Sadly, parents don't have time to call a committee meeting of child care experts to discuss how best to get Johnny to school on time. Sometimes, a threat of pain might be the best you can think of, and the threat will not be effective unless it is occasionally carried out.

Anytime someone refers to a child as an "it" and how "it" experiences pain/fear, it always makes me crack up for some reason. :D

Emet

18th April 2011, 10:50 AM

Anyone know where the troll author of the OP has got to?

More pressing matters (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7096325&postcount=13).

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 11:31 AM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 11:37 AM

So you see them as possibly fit to parent in the future. Ok, but when they are hitting their kid they most certainly are not.

So your saying its wrong to punish your child? That makes them spoiled, and obnoxious. The reason most dont agree with hitting your child, is becuase they have been hit by their parents, and sometimes for senceless reasons I admit, and turn around saying its wrong, "patting them on their back" will so help them =p. Let me ask you, have you seen how most kids are with their parents doing nothing as they act up?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 11:44 AM

For one thing, some of your premises might merit further investigation.

This subject came up somewhat tangentially in another thread awhile back. Out of curiosity I did some 'quick 'n dirty' research, since I had a volume of family genealogy within reach.

It covers my father's family from 1640, when the first in the line from England settled in Newbury, MA, through 1882. I picked a dozen or so of the earliest marriages in the book at random and tallied the ages of the brides. I'm not going to do it over again right now, but as memory serves (and somewhat to my surprise) only one or two were even under eighteen, and the median age was closer to the mid-twenties than the 'teens. A few were closer to thirty for their first marriage.

I repeated the exercise for the mid and late 1700s with similar results.

These were all pretty much salt-of-the-earth type farmers and a few merchants, sailors and soldiers ... as typical a cross-section of colonial America as could be asked for.

The child bride was not quite as common as we are prone to believe these days.

Can I get a copy of some sort? The way our education system goes here in New York, Teachers tell us, we test on it, and we get b the course. Every world history teacher Ive had all tell about the same general thing, when we move on to women throughout history, we are taught they normally are married in their teens, and have kids by 16-17 years old.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 11:45 AM

So your saying its wrong to punish your child?

False dichotomy. I've punished my children plenty without hitting them. Making them explain to me what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and helping decide what the consequences should be is a lot more effective.

As someone upthread said, hitting is a failure of the parent.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 11:53 AM

Anyone know where the troll author of the OP has got to?

Well if you must know, I drove my pregnant GF to the hospital for an ultrasound, shes 15 btw and very happy, then I drove her mother and twin sister to the airport(60-70 miles away), stopped at wollyworld the opressive retailer, picked up some reeds at a music store for my clarinet, got something to eat, and went to take a nap. Now whats been bugging me is what is a troll? Also I started this thread for opinions, and Information. For someone to provide me with some BETTER info then what ive been told, and experienced. Im 18 =p not a college professor, or old 40-50 year person. as stated in the OP, "Opinions?Explanations?anything?

Arcade22

18th April 2011, 11:55 AM

All the teenage parents I've seen have been more or less the most stupid people you could imagine. I mean how stupid can you be to not abort the damn thing when you've got studies, no work and that you are going to have to live on welfare? Thank god I've not seen many teen parents...

I don't care how society looked back then. We live and deal with the reality we're living in now and, unless society is soon going to regress back 600 or 800 years, teenage parenting is obviously a negative thing.

Again, Thank god that two guys can't, except in disturbing fiction, make each other pregnant no matter how hard they try.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 11:57 AM

False dichotomy. I've punished my children plenty without hitting them. Making them explain to me what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and helping decide what the consequences should be is a lot more effective.

As someone upthread said, hitting is a failure of the parent.

Well thats the way I was raised, and I turned out fine, but when I see a child running around knocking over church alters, name calling people, and giving an all out fit, that calls for disiplin, that child has become rotten, and will want its way, and think THAT is normal =p. Which I think thats our politions think. If they want something, they do it, and noone is happy about it. Person in point, the monkey-in-a-suit, George Bush.

TragicMonkey

18th April 2011, 11:59 AM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:04 PM

All the teenage parents I've seen have been more or less the most stupid people you could imagine.

Not true entirely, though I agree some are... really out there. I am a teen parent, I constantly ask questions, and im normally reading some type of book or watching an educational channel. I do have plans for my life, and im happy with my life. Though I resorted to the Army, Im doing a Medical feild, also planning on going to a college to get myself a degree to become a PA. Sound like a "stupid teenage parent"? I have know many of my friends with this same incident become successful.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:06 PM

18 and 15? I hope you're not in Virginia, you'd be in some considerable trouble.

Sometimes I think the "location" under my name doesnt help people figure where im at =p. Search "Fort Drum" in google. FYI for the rest reading this, I was 17 when she got prego =p. She turns 16 very soon, I just turned 18.

TragicMonkey

18th April 2011, 12:07 PM

Not true entirely, though I agree some are... really out there. I am a teen parent, I constantly ask questions, and im normally reading some type of book or watching an educational channel. I do have plans for my life, and im happy with my life. Though I resorted to the Army, Im doing a Medical feild, also planning on going to a college to get myself a degree to become a PA. Sound like a "stupid teenage parent"? I have know many of my friends with this same incident become successful.

Delete, never mind, I shan't waste good advice on the rude.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:07 PM

Well thats the way I was raised, and I turned out fine, but when I see a child running around knocking over church alters, name calling people, and giving an all out fit, that calls for disiplin, that child has become rotten, and will want its way, and think THAT is normal
That's the false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possible states, they are simply two different ways to fail on opposite sides of a continuum. My children were frequently praised by strangers for their politeness, good behaviour, and social grace and "hitting" was not part of our disciplinary measures.

That you cannot think of anything but "hitting" and "chaos" is a failure of your own imagination, not an objective fact about parenting.

ETA: And a fantasic practical demonstration of why teenagers are generally not mature enough or educated enough to be effective parents for children in today's world.

What do you think your #1 responsibility is as a parent?

Which I think thats our politions think. If they want something, they do it, and noone is happy about it. Person in point, the monkey-in-a-suit, George Bush.
What year do you think this is?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:08 PM

18 and 15?.

Also, who cares about a 3 year differnce? Does a 40 year old date a 18 year old? yes. Though some arguments arise from that, normally nothing happens to them. Im not saying an 18 year old should date a 8 year old, or a 20 year old date a 14 year old. There are limits, and I believe within the 3 year range is perfectly fine.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:12 PM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:15 PM

That's the false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possible states, they are simply two different ways to fail on opposite sides of a continuum. My children were frequently praised by strangers for their politeness, good behaviour, and social grace and "hitting" was not part of our disciplinary measures.

That you cannot think of anything but "hitting" and "chaos" is a failure of your own imagination, not an objective fact about parenting.

What year do you think this is?

Believe it or not nature is in chaos, it likes to be chaotic, Im not saying to go and hit your child for any reason you see fit, but there are limits. Do we not punish those that commit crimes with jail? What do you think happens to them in there? I agree though, you can make non violent punishments as you stated before, but the examples ive stated before definately call for some type of disipline vs. "What did you do wrong today honey? What could you have done instead? Alright go to bed now."
Im not attacking your way, but think about it this way. If a stranger says you cant eat at a certain place in your house, is he right? Thats taking your rights away. Same with how you believe you should raise your child, GRANTED there are limits.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:16 PM

It's not the "range" that's the problem- it's where the bottom limit falls

What exactly do you mean?

Emet

18th April 2011, 12:19 PM

Believe it or not nature is in chaos, it likes to be chaotic, Im not saying to go and hit your child for any reason you see fit, but there are limits. Do we not punish those that commit crimes with jail? What do you think happens to them in there? I agree though, you can make non violent punishments as you stated before, but the examples ive stated before definately call for some type of disipline vs. "What did you do wrong today honey? What could you have done instead? Alright go to bed now."
Im not attacking your way, but think about it this way. If a stranger says you cant eat at a certain place in your house, is he right? Thats taking your rights away. Same with how you believe you should raise your child, GRANTED there are limits.

Believe it or not, we're talking about child rearing (http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/201.html).

TragicMonkey

18th April 2011, 12:21 PM

Toke

18th April 2011, 12:22 PM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:23 PM

What do you think your #1 responsibility

It would be the success of my childs future, I believe that you are partially right, but not fully. Like I have stated, its up to the parent on how they raise their children, and when there is actual abuse, and not displine, then someone needs to step in. When a line is crossed thats when you should intervine. Telling others how to raise their children is like me telling you that you need to feed them more, give them more baths/showers, take them to the park more because they are inside too much, etc etc. Not saying that yours are like that, or that you are not.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:26 PM

Believe it or not, we're talking about child rearing (http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/201.html).

Ill tell you from experience, I laughed when my parents put me in "Time-out" that method does not work. Ignoring me made me want to make more noise and break more things. etc etc. That type of punishment doesnt always work.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:28 PM

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:31 PM

Believe it or not nature is in chaos, it likes to be chaotic,
nature doesn't "like" anything, it is not an entity and is not sentient.

Im not saying to go and hit your child for any reason you see fit,
Aren't you? You don't want other people telling you what to do in your "own house".

but there are limits.
Yes, there are. One of them is "hitting kids is abuse".

Do we not punish those that commit crimes with jail?
Yes. Instead of flogging. Look it up.

What do you think happens to them in there?
"What happens in there" is largely the result of how the prisoners choose to treat each other, despite the best efforts of the guards and the prison system as a whole, being limited as they are by finite budgets and manpower.

Interesting that you should bring this up, as child abuse is a recognised contributing factor in who ends up incarcreated and "what happens in there".

I agree though, you can make non violent punishments as you stated before, but the examples ive stated before definately call for some type of disipline vs. "What did you do wrong today honey? What could you have done instead? Alright go to bed now."
Not even close to what I was talking about. More like "What the HELL do you think you are doing? What made you think that kind of behaviour is acceptable? Now go put everything back where you found it and apologise to these nice people for acting like an animal!" Then, when we get back to the car/house/wherever make them repeat the rules three times so it sticks.

I fear for your child.

Im not attacking your way, but think about it this way. If a stranger says you cant eat at a certain place in your house, is he right? Thats taking your rights away. Same with how you believe you should raise your child.
Another shinig example of teenaged immaturity. Welcome to society, you're not the only one here.

GRANTED there are limits.
Yes, and one of the really important ones is "hitting kids is abuse".

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:31 PM

I think it was in "Freakeconomics" there were a Finish study of church books over the last few centuries. It appeared that the couples that were most successful at breeding and bringing their kids to adulthood had an age of 15F and 35M.
The girl would be young and fertile, the man would have had time to get a nice size reindeer herd to support a family.

I just kind of hope that we have progressed part the point where breeding efficiency is important. Around here we should hopefully be able to focus on quality instead of quantity.

That I see wrong, not because the girl would be a teen mom, but because of that huge age difference, seeing she is a minor. if the guy was 18-19, I see no problem. Though waiting until your 35 is a suggested idea, due to you are more financially stable.

Emet

18th April 2011, 12:34 PM

Ill tell you from experience, I laughed when my parents put me in "Time-out" that method does not work. Ignoring me made me want to make more noise and break more things. etc etc. That type of punishment doesnt always work.

Your experience as a child rearer? Or perhaps your parent's abilities/disabilities as child rearers?

A Word About Spanking
Perhaps no form of discipline is more controversial than spanking. Here are some reasons why the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) discourages spanking:

Spanking teaches kids that it's OK to hit when they're angry.
Spanking can physically harm children.
Rather than teaching kids how to change their behavior, spanking makes them fearful of their parents and merely teaches them to avoid getting caught.
For kids seeking attention by acting out, spanking may inadvertently "reward" them — negative attention is better than no attention at all.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/discipline.html#

AAP: Guidance for Effective Discipline (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;101/4/723.pdf)

Mark6

18th April 2011, 12:39 PM

Sometimes I think the "location" under my name doesnt help people figure where im at =p. Search "Fort Drum" in google. FYI for the rest reading this, I was 17 when she got prego =p. She turns 16 very soon, I just turned 18.
Fort Drum, NY?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:40 PM

nature doesn't "like" anything, it is not an entity and is not sentient.

Aren't you? You don't want other people telling you what to do in your "own house".

Yes, there are. One of them is "hitting kids is abuse".

Yes. Instead of flogging. Look it up.

"What happens in there" is largely the result of how the prisoners choose to treat each other, despite the best efforts of the guards and the prison system as a whole, being limited as they are by finite budgets and manpower.

Interesting that you should bring this up, as child abuse is a recognised contributing factor in who ends up incarcreated and "what happens in there".

Not even close to what I was talking about. More like "What the HELL do you think you are doing? What made you think that kind of behaviour is acceptable? Now go put everything back where you found it and apologise to these nice people for acting like an animal!" Then, when we get back to the car/house/wherever make them repeat the rules three times so it sticks.

I fear for your child.

Another shinig example of teenaged immaturity. Welcome to society, you're not the only one here.

Yes, and one of the really important ones is "hitting kids is abuse".

Society in general is messed up, hitting your kids is not abuse, im pretty sure we have gotten this far in our country, and only recently have these child abuse laws come up. I do not agree with senceless violence, I do not agree with rape, but I agree there should be more disipline for kids.

If youve realised there is no "perfect parenting" and it should be up to me on how I would raise my child. Not any other person, to the extents of the childs welfare being endangered, and by that i mean their life is in danger, or they are in direct path of being messed up for life. Here let me ask you, how do you interperate me hitting my child?

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:40 PM

It would be the success of my childs future,
Nope, that's going to be up to them, not you. But don't feel bad, it's a common mistake in this country.

Your number one responsibility is turning the slimy, slobbering, poopy, pile of noise you are issued into a healty, functioning adult, and you only get 18 years to do it in- and you don't have the first goddamn clue how short that really is.

I believe that you are partially right, but not fully.
And I believe that I've raised kids for nearly as long as you've been alive. I've got real-world, first hand experience and all you've got is a belly full of self-righteous indignation and a lack of imagination.

Like I have stated, its up to the parent on how they raise their children, and when there is actual abuse, and not displine, then someone needs to step in. When a line is crossed thats when you should intervine.
And that line is hitting the kid. It is "up to the driver" how fast they go and how often they change lanes, but when they start endangering others society gets to step in. Boo-***********-hoo. I'm so sorry that mean old society won't let you "be yourself".

Telling others how to raise their children is like me telling you that you need to feed them more, give them more baths/showers, take them to the park more because they are inside too much, etc etc. Yeah, well, if your kids are running around underfed, unwashed, and never let outside you're going to hear from the authorities also. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Not saying that yours are like that, or that you are not.
My kids are 17 and 15 and all kind of more mature than you are evidencing here.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:44 PM

Ill tell you from experience, I laughed when my parents put me in "Time-out" that method does not work. Ignoring me made me want to make more noise and break more things. etc etc. That type of punishment doesnt always work.

I never used "time out" either. All it does is let the kid stew in anger and cook up all kinds of justifications for his bad behaviour. They need to understand not just that a behaviour is "bad", but why. The "why" is by far the most important thing.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:46 PM

Spanking teaches kids that it's OK to hit when they're angry.Spanking can physically harm children.
Rather than teaching kids how to change their behavior, spanking makes them fearful of their parents and merely teaches them to avoid getting caught.
For kids seeking attention by acting out, spanking may inadvertently "reward" them — negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Not true, every form of disipline ive recieved has been from spanking, and I am not violent at all. I believe I should disipline my child the same way.
For the "teaching them their behavior" my Father very throughly explained to me why my behavior was wrong, then spanked me.
For the attention, Ive gotten alot of attention, there hasnt been a point where either of my parents hasnt been there for me. So that logic is thrown out.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 12:50 PM

Fort Drum, NY?

Yes, I wished alot of people like you used the goddess of information, The Internet.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:51 PM

Society in general is messed up,
Evidence?

hitting your kids is not abuse,
I'm sorry, but the society you are a part of says it is. So does research.

im pretty sure we have gotten this far in our country, and only recently have these child abuse laws come up.
Acutally, they started in the Victorian era, more'n a hundred years ago. Learn the facts before you start pontificating.

I do not agree with senceless violence, I do not agree with rape, but I agree there should be more disipline for kids.
Total non-sequitor. "Discipline" =/= "hitting"

If youve realised there is no "perfect parenting" and it should be up to me on how I would raise my child.
That's the "perfect solution" fallacy. An alternative parenting style to hitting kids does not have to be 'perfect' for hitting kids to be detrimental.

Not any other person, to the extents of the childs welfare being endangered, and by that i mean their life is in danger, or they are in direct path of being messed up for life.
Which studies have shown is statistically in the cards for kids that get hit. Look at your own example- you say you got hit as a child... did that adequately prepare you to understand the consequences of having unprotected sex with a minor?

Here let me ask you, how do you interperate me hitting my child?
I said already- as a lack of imagination, education, and/or emotional maturity and a failure of parenting.

How old is your child? have you hit it already?

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 12:53 PM

Not true, every form of disipline ive recieved has been from spanking, and I am not violent at all.

That's pretty funny considering how hard you're arguing for the "right" to hit your own kid.

dtugg

18th April 2011, 01:00 PM

I think I am going to head to the local high school and find as many 16 year old girls to impregnate as possible. It really shouldn't be very hard. I do have to remember to give them a fake name so I am not on the hook for child support.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 01:00 PM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 01:04 PM

Evidence?

I'm sorry, but the society you are a part of says it is. So does research.

Acutally, they started in the Victorian era, more'n a hundred years ago. Learn the facts before you start pontificating.

Total non-sequitor. "Discipline" =/= "hitting"

That's the "perfect solution" fallacy. An alternative parenting style to hitting kids does not have to be 'perfect' for hitting kids to be detrimental.

Which studies have shown is statistically in the cards for kids that get hit. Look at your own example- you say you got hit as a child... did that adequately prepare you to understand the consequences of having unprotected sex with a minor?

I said already- as a lack of imagination, education, and/or emotional maturity and a failure of parenting.

How old is your child? have you hit it already?

Actually look at our Child Protective Service, they havent been around very long at all, and if they(child abuse laws) started in the Victorian era, they didnt follow through for very long. I may have had sex, but that was as a minor, and fyi the protection broke. I just got very unlucky. As for my child, is none of your concern. Also that didnt answer my question. You assumed what I meant by hitting your child meant to backhand them until I deem it punished then telling them to go to there room. No I plan on doing the same thing my Father did to me. Talk to me, then spank me, normally with a belt, and less then 5 times, being sent to my room to think about it, later he would bring me out and ask me what ive learned, and boy I learned quick.
Before you act all high and mighty yourself, realise that im not saying to anyone that they should choose mine over yours, or yours over mine. It should be up to the parent, now I need to drive lord knows where, for whatever godly unknown reason my GF's dad wants me to.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 01:16 PM

Actually look at our Child Protective Service, they havent been around very long at all, and if they(child abuse laws) started in the Victorian era, they didnt follow through for very long.
You don't even know what you are talking about, do you? You're just bluffing up your justifications and hoping no one notices. Grow up, learn something, and stop trying to pretend you've got this all figured out. The only thing you've got here is "papa whupped me with a belt, and I think I'm okay".

I may have had sex, but that was as a minor, and fyi the protection broke. I just got very unlucky.
Take some responsibility for your own actions. "Luck".

As for my child, is none of your concern.
Yes, it is. Child abuse is everyone's concern, and you are here trying to get us to make you feel justified in hitting your kid.

Also that didnt answer my question. You assumed what I meant by hitting your child meant to backhand them until I deem it punished then telling them to go to there room.
Don't assume what I "assume". Hitting with a belt is hitting.

No I plan on doing the same thing my Father did to me. Talk to me, then spank me, normally with a belt, and less then 5 times, being sent to my room to think about it, later he would bring me out and ask me what ive learned, and boy I learned quick.
I did very much the same thing with my kids- minus the belt- and it still worked. Fancy that.

Before you act all high and mighty yourself, realise that im not saying to anyone that they should choose mine over yours, or yours over mine.
I am. I'm saying that anyone that need to use hitting their kid as their planned and only form of discipline is lacking of imagination, education, and/or emotional maturity, and is a failure as a parent.

It should be up to the parent,
"Up to a point".

...now I need to drive lord knows where, for whatever godly unknown reason my GF's dad wants me to.
There's the responsibility you seem to have failed to learn from getting spanked.

Nursefoxfire

18th April 2011, 03:00 PM

Actually look at our Child Protective Service, they havent been around very long at all, and if they(child abuse laws) started in the Victorian era, they didnt follow through for very long. I may have had sex, but that was as a minor, and fyi the protection broke. I just got very unlucky. As for my child, is none of your concern. Also that didnt answer my question. You assumed what I meant by hitting your child meant to backhand them until I deem it punished then telling them to go to there room. No I plan on doing the same thing my Father did to me. Talk to me, then spank me, normally with a belt, and less then 5 times, being sent to my room to think about it, later he would bring me out and ask me what ive learned, and boy I learned quick.
Before you act all high and mighty yourself, realise that im not saying to anyone that they should choose mine over yours, or yours over mine. It should be up to the parent, now I need to drive lord knows where, for whatever godly unknown reason my GF's dad wants me to.

Not quick enough, apparently. Didn't they just kick you out of their house?

gph

18th April 2011, 03:01 PM

There's lots of well adjusted people walking the earth today that were never hit as a child and no doubt lots that were hit. The former flies in the face of the supposed virtues of corporal punishment.

And the latter flies in the face of the supposed harm of corporal punishment.

Maybe, just maybe, any blanket statement saying that corporal punishment is "good parenting" or "bad parenting" would be overly broad.People have adjusted coming from childhood violence therefore it's not harmful and maybe even a good thing? Even when it's obvious, by the well adjusted adults that were never hit, that childhood violence is unnecessary?

You didn't answer this question:Is it acceptable for one adult to hit another to achieve a goal? If not, why not?Why is that unacceptable? What does it say about the person doing the hitting? Why is that not applicable to an adult hitting a child?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 04:55 PM

Stevie, let me throw you an entirely non-hypothetical question. When my son was four, he had a violent temper (I had one too, as a child, all the way through to my late teens). We had never spanked or hit him, and when he wasn't angry he was very sweet and loving. Nevertheless, something upset him one day to the point where he attempted to beat me up. He was punching and kicking me as hard as he could, he wanted to hurt me that much.

What would you do in this situation, with your kid?

Sorry it took me so long, but in this situation, I would let him. Believe it or not, I can see if something is wrong with a child, especially mine. I would wait for him to calm down, though id dodge the head shots (both). After I would ask him what it was about, if there was no reason, send him/her to their room, till they are ready to talk. Now if it was something else like breaking someone elses stuff, or beating someone else up, I would definately stop him/her.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 04:57 PM

Not quick enough, apparently. Didn't they just kick you out of their house?

Yes, but what do you think they did that for?

Emet

18th April 2011, 05:02 PM

Sorry it took me so long, but in this situation, I would let him. Believe it or not, I can see if something is wrong with a child, especially mine. I would wait for him to calm down, though id dodge the head shots (both). After I would ask him what it was about, if there was no reason, send him/her to their room, till they are ready to talk. Now if it was something else like breaking someone elses stuff, or beating someone else up, I would definately stop him/her.

So what has your hypothetical child learned from you allowing him to hit you first, then discuss it later?

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 05:05 PM

Sorry it took me so long, but in this situation, I would let him. Believe it or not, I can see if something is wrong with a child, especially mine. I would wait for him to calm down, though id dodge the head shots (both).
Head shots are not the danger from an enraged four year old. :)

After I would ask him what it was about, if there was no reason,
I repeat, he's four. he doesn't have any damn idea. And "reason" doesn't enter into it. It's 100% emotion.

send him/her to their room,
Wrong move. You've just taught him that that kind of behaviour separates him from your affection. Coupled with your spankings when he disobeys, he learns that your acceptance of him is conditional to his behaviour. Have fun during those teen years when he's trying to develop his own personality and testing the boundaries.

You seem to really like "send him to his room". I thought you didn't like "time outs"? Or is that just because you know "spanking" is the wrong answer and you can't think of anything else?

till they are ready to talk.
He's FOUR. What do you expect him to talk about? And "waiting till he's ready" is the wrong answer. He won't know. You are the parent, you have to take the reins.

Now if it was something else like breaking someone elses stuff, or beating someone else up, I would definately stop him/her.
How? Spanking him? That will teach him Anger=Violence, and your position as parent is based on your size and ability to dominate. Have fun when he's bigger, stronger and faster than you are, and doesn't know what to do with anger besides "hit or get hit".

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 05:14 PM

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 05:19 PM

Head shots are not the danger from an enraged four year old. :)

I repeat, he's four. he doesn't have any damn idea. And "reason" doesn't enter into it. It's 100% emotion.

Wrong move. You've just taught him that that kind of behaviour separates him from your affection. Coupled with your spankings when he disobeys, he learns that your acceptance of him is conditional to his behaviour. Have fun during those teen years when he's trying to develop his own personality and testing the boundaries.

You seem to really like "send him to his room". I thought you didn't like "time outs"? Or is that just because you know "spanking" is the wrong answer and you can't think of anything else?

He's FOUR. What do you expect him to talk about? And "waiting till he's ready" is the wrong answer. He won't know. You are the parent, you have to take the reins.

How? Spanking him? That will teach him Anger=Violence, and your position as parent is based on your size and ability to dominate. Have fun when he's bigger, stronger and faster than you are, and doesn't know what to do with anger besides "hit or get hit".

Look lady/dude, when I was 4 I already knew how to read music, and I knew first aid skills. There is no excuse a 4 year old could not talk to me about what he felt.
Another case, I recently babysat a 2 year old who, in the time i went to the bathroom, was able to open a door, deadbolted, and chained, with a chair from the next room, undress and run 2 blocks down the street. If your going to mply a 4 year old isnt smart to express what they are feeling/ thinking, you have a very low standard for that age.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 05:22 PM

So what has your hypothetical child learned from you allowing him to hit you first, then discuss it later?

Well if a child is that enraged out of nowhere, which is very rare (and i would get them evaluated by a pych)=p, then nothing really could stop them. hitting them in that situation i find wrong, it teaches them that expressing their emotion would be wrong, starting to sound like whats-their-name inthis thread, but this is one situation i dont approve of hitting them

Emet

18th April 2011, 05:29 PM

Well if a child is that enraged out of nowhere, which is very rare (and i would get them evaluated by a pych)=p, then nothing really could stop them. hitting them in that situation i find wrong, it teaches them that expressing their emotion would be wrong, starting to sound like whats-their-name inthis thread, but this is one situation i dont approve of hitting them

It's actually very common. Children lack impulse control. Don't you think you could immediately stop a 4 year old from hitting? Is it a proper way for them to express their emotions?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 05:37 PM

It's actually very common. Children lack impulse control. Don't you think you could immediately stop a 4 year old from hitting? Is it a proper way for them to express their emotions?

What do you suggest in that type of situation?

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 05:41 PM

Alright peace for now, im going to go play a game and go to bed. If you have suggestions or comments about the parenting, not "violence is not the answer" but a more indepth reason, also not like "lacking imagination" and "failure as a parent", feel free to leave them here. Also Piscivore, if you have any good tips for parenting vs. what I stated above, please send me a copy via PM so I can read it faster and pick off from there, been fun discussing this with ya! ^^

ETA: Will someone explain "troll" to me? Last minute thought as I closed my browser :/ Thanks

Ryokan

18th April 2011, 06:53 PM

ETA: Will someone explain "troll" to me? Last minute thought as I closed my browser :/ Thanks

If you're a teenager and need to have the term troll explained to you, that's pretty much evidence you are one. Either you're not who you're saying you are, or you're feigning ignorance.

SteveHamilton

18th April 2011, 06:57 PM

If you're a teenager and need to have the term troll explained to you, that's pretty much evidence you are one. Either you're not who you're saying you are, or you're feigning ignorance.

That explained so much =p. Just add sacasism. Im a teenager and I have never heard of the term Troll.

Toke

18th April 2011, 07:39 PM

There is a cute little trick to appearing knowledgeable on the net.
It involves having a second tab open with google or Wikipedia, when you come across a term you don't know, simply search it. ;)

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 08:05 PM

Piscivore:You don't even know what you are talking about, do you? You're just bluffing up your justifications and hoping no one notices. Grow up, learn something, and stop trying to pretend you've got this all figured out. The only thing you've got here is "papa whupped me with a belt, and I think I'm okay".

Me: Only to what our great and grand education system tells us, unless you wanna say different.
If you'll notice, I do say different. Have you had specific parenting classes in HS?

Piscivore:Take some responsibility for your own actions. "Luck".

me:I have, Im working, Im in school passing with 90s+, and I am learning how to drive (btw today was the first time i drove on the interstate, NOT A FUN THING AT FIRST)
Then you need to accept that having a child is a possible consequence of having sex, and not blame a faulty contraceptive. This isn't a bad boss run on WOW, this is a human life that you are responsible for. Own your actions.

Piscivore:Yes, it is. Child abuse is everyone's concern, and you are here trying to get us to make you feel justified in hitting your kid.

me:Child abuse is everyone's concern after a point, which is constantly beating your child, or unsafe home to where its unsanitary, the child getting sick all the time and getting no help. Who made you the one that decides what i decide to do to discipline or not?
Both of us being part of a larger society.

Makeing me follow your way would be like me telling you its against the law not to follow mine =p. If violence isnt the answer, boy does our country have alot to learn then, and our leaders would have to lead by example.
Your method is about the same to what we did to Hitler, we used appeasement to keep away from violence, and he just kept getting worse and worse, the same is with spoiled rotten children.
False analogy. To an egregious degree. Adults are not children, and neither is a nation. They are not the same thing at all, they aren't even similar. Would you hit another adult for disobeying you?

Piscivore:Don't assume what I "assume". Hitting with a belt is hitting.

Me: your right, I shouldnt assume, hitting is hitting, but its a hell of alot better to the alternative.
As I've said, there isn't a single alternative. That you still insist there is after being shown otherwise indicates either a lack of maturity (such that you can't admit when you're wrong), or insincerity in your posts here (which would be the "troll" thing you claim not to know, despite indicating on another thread you are an active MMO player).

Piscivore:I did very much the same thing with my kids- minus the belt- and it still worked. Fancy that.

Me: Well good for you, but that wont work in every household, because everyone is different.
Try it.

Piscivore:I am. I'm saying that anyone that need to use hitting their kid as their planned and only form of discipline is lacking of imagination, education, and/or emotional maturity, and is a failure as a parent.

Me: You keep saying that, but who are you to judge whos a failure and who isnt?
A parent with 17 years experience more than you. If you don't have the intelligence to listen to people who've been down the road you're starting out on, it's going to go hard on you.

Your saying that you on your high and mighty throne know whats right and wrong,
I know what works and what doesn't. It's called experience. Look it up.

but you arent God. Therefore step down, and cut that act.
Perfect solution again. I don't have to be God, I just have to know more than you. Do you really think you know everything there is to know about parenting? did you get a cheat code no one else knows?

Piscivore:"Up to a point".

Me: agreed.
And that point, in our country, in our time, is "hitting a kid" Deal with it, move away, get your kid taken away... it's your choice. But you're not selling anyone on your purile and naive notions.

Piscivore:There's the responsibility you seem to have failed to learn from getting spanked.

Me: Which is....?
That your life doesn't belong to you anymore, not for the next 18 years, and especially not for the next five.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 08:14 PM

Look lady/dude,
Dude.

...when I was 4 I already knew how to read music, and I knew first aid skills.
I knew how to read when I was three. Doesn't mean I was competent to self-analyse my own emotional state to the point I could articulate it to others.

And what kind of "first aid"? You knew how to put on a band-aid?

There is no excuse a 4 year old could not talk to me about what he felt.
Another case, I recently babysat a 2 year old who, in the time i went to the bathroom, was able to open a door, deadbolted, and chained, with a chair from the next room, undress and run 2 blocks down the street. If your going to mply a 4 year old isnt smart to express what they are feeling/ thinking, you have a very low standard for that age.
Physical actions are easy. There are monkeys, birds, and octopi that can accomplish similar tasks. When my son was two, he could put together an Escher-based puzzle just by looking at a picture; that doesn't mean he had a sophisticated enough understanding of emotional states to have a meaningful discussion about it. You spent a few hours with a toddler, I lived with two of them for years.

Piscivore

18th April 2011, 08:18 PM

Alright peace for now, im going to go play a game and go to bed... Also Piscivore, if you have any good tips for parenting vs. what I stated above, please send me a copy via PM so I can read it faster and pick off from there, been fun discussing this with ya! ^^

I'm not going to, as I doubt your sincerity and your willingness to accept it. I will give you my first tip: your first sentence shows a lack of priorities. The kid is your only priority now. Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 08:37 PM

Somehow I suspect that this would not be a management technique which would find acceptance in most work environments.

No, but "you're fired" is. Since you can't fire your kids, what would you do instead?

Children are not suffering from some sort of diminished capacity which precludes communication. They simply have less data to work with. If you find yourself resorting to pain as a communication device, most especially if you are in a hurry, it reflects more on your own ability to express yourself than it does on the child's ability to comprehend.

I agree. What's your point?

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 08:44 PM

Well if you must know, I drove my pregnant GF to the hospital for an ultrasound, shes 15 btw and very happy, then I drove her mother and twin sister to the airport(60-70 miles away), stopped at wollyworld the opressive retailer, picked up some reeds at a music store for my clarinet, got something to eat, and went to take a nap. Now whats been bugging me is what is a troll? Also I started this thread for opinions, and Information. For someone to provide me with some BETTER info then what ive been told, and experienced. Im 18 =p not a college professor, or old 40-50 year person. as stated in the OP, "Opinions?Explanations?anything?

Well, good luck. And congratulations. I guess.

And, seriously, what you are about to do is extremely difficult, more so than it seems right now. It would be somewhat easier if you were older, but that doesn't seem to be an option, so do your best.

One of the problems you will face is that people will be perfectly willing to criticize everything you do, and sometimes you will see in front of you a bad option and a worse option. Take the bad option, and be prepared for a bunch of people to tell you you're doing it wrong, because, you know, they would be perfect every single time.

Meadmaker

18th April 2011, 08:58 PM

You didn't answer this question:Why is that unacceptable? What does it say about the person doing the hitting? Why is that not applicable to an adult hitting a child?

1. It depends on the goal.

2. Because in the case of two adults, it is almost always possible to walk away. In those rare cases where it is not, see number 1.

Nihilianth

18th April 2011, 10:04 PM

Also, who cares about a 3 year differnce? Does a 40 year old date a 18 year old? yes. Though some arguments arise from that, normally nothing happens to them. Im not saying an 18 year old should date a 8 year old, or a 20 year old date a 14 year old. There are limits, and I believe within the 3 year range is perfectly fine.

It's not the "range" that's the problem- it's where the bottom limit falls.

Far as I know, SteveHamilton is right. I know in the state of PA, it is a four year difference is allowable. An 18 year old can go out with a 14 year old.

The reason they give such a leeway:

Imagine you turn 18 on July first, but your girlfriend is still 17 for another whole week. Should the 18 year old be guilty of "statutory rape," just because they are a week older?

Ok, so instead of a week, how about a month? 6 Months? A year? Where do we draw line to prevent such outrageous ridiculousness?

Well, most states decide to draw a line between 2 and 4 year difference. It avoids a terrible miscarriage of justice by throwing someone who just turns 18 into prison, just for kissing their 17 year old girlfriend who is a week younger.

Nihilianth

18th April 2011, 10:07 PM

I don't care at all. I'm just aware that some states do not have a "Romeo and Juliet" provision to age-of-consent laws. I know a guy who is a convicted registered sex offender for life because he was 18 and she was 17, and in Virginia that counts as an adult taking advantage of a minor.

And that is a gross miscarriage of justice. A great example of this terrible police state called a "democracy" we have here in the United States.

I know the law in PA was carefully crafted, in order to avoid such an idiotic foolish example of idiocy.

Rape to engage in sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than 13 years of age.

Rape to engage in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than (1) 13 years of age or (2) 16 years of age and the actor is four or more years older.

ETA: BTW:

Virginia, same source:

Sexual intercourse with a child under the age of thirteen

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15 when the actor is a minor and the victim is three or more years younger

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15 when the actor is a minor and the victim is less than three years younger

Why the redundency? Why not just throw everyone in jail for having "carnal knowledge," even if they are exactly the same age between the ages of 13 and 15?[/quote]

It states that the actor cannot have "carnal knowledge" if the victim is more than and less than three years younger.

Well....uummm...ok. Redundant much? Unless the website I am posting from is just simply misprinted or something.

God, what a retarded state! (No offense to you at all, but that is the God's-honest truth.)

Nihilianth

18th April 2011, 10:21 PM

Head shots are not the danger from an enraged four year old. :)

Heh, you;re wrong. But then, that's why I would wear both a cup, and a helmet in that case! :D

I look at my two AWESOME And ADORABLE twin boys, and I cannot imagine them growing up to be that enraged at this point. They are just too cute and sweet. :)

Of course, I am definitely ready to be resistant to their big brown eyes when they are a few years older.

I think that a quick smack wouldn't be all that bad. I know I won't put them over my knee and bash them. I may smack their hand, or their behind real quick if they are getting into something they shouldn't be. Especially if that something is dangerous.

Piscivore

19th April 2011, 02:01 AM

I think that a quick smack wouldn't be all that bad. I know I won't put them over my knee and bash them. I may smack their hand, or their behind real quick if they are getting into something they shouldn't be. Especially if that something is dangerous.

Oh, yeah, that's not the same thing at all.

Arcade22

19th April 2011, 05:05 AM

SteveHamilton

19th April 2011, 05:56 AM

I'm not going to, as I doubt your sincerity and your willingness to accept it. I will give you my first tip: your first sentence shows a lack of priorities. The kid is your only priority now. Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

My first sentence is due to Im out of school for spring break. My daughter isnt even born yet, and my girlfriend is asleep. Im a gamer as you so kindly state 2ish posts above, but to a reasonable extent. I play after everything I needed to do is done(homework, chores, tasks assigned to me, research, and whatever that day may hold for me), till about 9pm. Thats what my father disiplined me into doing =p work then play. I go to bed at 10pm after taking a bath, and reading a book for the remainder. Dont base everything off about me because you read a few topics, as for the other thing I have considered more ways to disipline my child =p with little luck of finding a good way at all. I did ask you for some assistance because I can listen, and pick out the things I like and do not like, after ive tried them, I may not fully agree with the way you have tried telling me, but there might be other solutions I am willing to do.

SteveHamilton

19th April 2011, 06:09 AM

Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

Funny you should mention that, this thread was more of an experiment more then anything =p. I was debating if i should write my English research paper on Teen Parenting, or Parenting. Both are two controversies that my English teacher likes. Also serving another purpose to find out what would be the best method. The method I know, or whatever method someone else says. Though I didnt get any good research at all, ironic because this is an educational site.
Never started anything personal, was mainly trying to get information a different way, which didnt work out.

Meadmaker

20th April 2011, 11:24 PM

Children are not suffering from some sort of diminished capacity which precludes communication. They simply have less data to work with. If you find yourself resorting to pain as a communication device, most especially if you are in a hurry, it reflects more on your own ability to express yourself than it does on the child's ability to comprehend.

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.

Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

Nihilianth

21st April 2011, 12:30 AM

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.

Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

Oh, but you didn't sit down with your little 6 year old child, and have a TRUE heart-to-heart! You didn't ask your child what the consequences would be for HIS choice if he got his way. You didn't negotiate with the child, by saying "if you do it my way right now, I will buy you a toy and some ice cream later! I love you! You know that, right?" :rolleyes:

quadraginta

21st April 2011, 03:57 AM

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.

Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

Are you saying you believe that in most situations it is the wrong thing to do?

Meadmaker

21st April 2011, 07:23 AM

Are you saying you believe that in most situations it is the wrong thing to do?

"Wrong" is a pretty strong word.

In my opinion, there is usually something better to do, and it is not what I chose to do, but I'm very reluctant to condemn those who make a different choice. Each person is stuck with the job of raising kids, and there isn't one, single answer about the "right" response to bad behavior. It's a complicated question.

Piscivore

21st April 2011, 10:33 AM

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.

As I said upthread. I don't consider a quick, light swat to the bottom "spanking" (or, when they are older, a light slap to the back of the head). Especially with younger kids, sometimes you just need to get their attention: like if they are dawdling or about to do something dangerous. Stevie-boy is talking about wailing on a kid with a belt. That's a whole different category.

Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

This the failure I see. You've turned the situation into a struggle between competeing ideologies. A struggle that implicitly makes the kid an equal, and the only reason your "side" wins out is because you are bigger and stronger. What happens when the kid is a teenager and he (or she) is bigger and stronger? What's going to happen when your wife has to lay down the law to him?

What "spanking", "grounding", "time outs" and other forms of punishment do is show a kid that force is the reason to follow a rule. It's far more important to get them to understand why the rule exists, and get them on board with the idea that the rules parents set are intended to help them- because we the parents are responsible for what happens to them, we are responsible for what happens because of them, and we are responsible for who they become. Even if the rules seem unfair, aren't the most fun, or are sometimes flawed, if they understand why rules have to exists and the motivations behind them, they do get on board- at least, mine did, very early on. If one is spanking a kid because one cannot articulate to the kid why the rule exists and why it is important (beyond "because I'm the parent, that's why!") then that is a failure of communication.

As for obedience- I don't even care if the kids break many of the rules if they have good, well thought out reasons for doing so. I have no use for the "rules are rules" mindset, it's enshrined and formalised stupidity. I'm not as concerned, as a parent, that my kids unquestionably obey all the rules I set (because I'm certainly not infallible) as much as I am concerned they are thinking about why they do what they do and they are considering the consequences of their actions- because these are the skills they are going to need as responsible adults. If the kids understand the goal of the parent-child relationship is developing them into a fully-functioning adult, not only do they more readily follow the parent's rules, they end up creating their own- at least, mine did. If one is spanking a kid simply to reinforce one's position of authority over the child, that authority exists only because of force, and that's a much greater failure.

Nihilianth

21st April 2011, 06:42 PM

As I said upthread. I don't consider a quick, light swat to the bottom "spanking" (or, when they are older, a light slap to the back of the head). Especially with younger kids, sometimes you just need to get their attention: like if they are dawdling or about to do something dangerous. Stevie-boy is talking about wailing on a kid with a belt. That's a whole different category.

This the failure I see. You've turned the situation into a struggle between competeing ideologies. A struggle that implicitly makes the kid an equal, and the only reason your "side" wins out is because you are bigger and stronger. What happens when the kid is a teenager and he (or she) is bigger and stronger? What's going to happen when your wife has to lay down the law to him?

What "spanking", "grounding", "time outs" and other forms of punishment do is show a kid that force is the reason to follow a rule. It's far more important to get them to understand why the rule exists, and get them on board with the idea that the rules parents set are intended to help them- because we the parents are responsible for what happens to them, we are responsible for what happens because of them, and we are responsible for who they become. Even if the rules seem unfair, aren't the most fun, or are sometimes flawed, if they understand why rules have to exists and the motivations behind them, they do get on board- at least, mine did, very early on. If one is spanking a kid because one cannot articulate to the kid why the rule exists and why it is important (beyond "because I'm the parent, that's why!") then that is a failure of communication.

As for obedience- I don't even care if the kids break many of the rules if they have good, well thought out reasons for doing so. I have no use for the "rules are rules" mindset, it's enshrined and formalised stupidity. I'm not as concerned, as a parent, that my kids unquestionably obey all the rules I set (because I'm certainly not infallible) as much as I am concerned they are thinking about why they do what they do and they are considering the consequences of their actions- because these are the skills they are going to need as responsible adults. If the kids understand the goal of the parent-child relationship is developing them into a fully-functioning adult, not only do they more readily follow the parent's rules, they end up creating their own- at least, mine did. If one is spanking a kid simply to reinforce one's position of authority over the child, that authority exists only because of force, and that's a much greater failure.

Ok, but what about when they are older, and they much follow the law to the T? No matter what one's intentions are, and how well-thought-out their actions might be, the law is the law. You should take a peek at the one thread titled "Is this illegal in the UK?" The poses the questions about the legality of one ambiguous pamphlet that is handed out on the streets, urging cancer patients (among other people with different types of illnesses) to come in, take a few minutes out of their day, sit down, and pray.

Apparently, such a pamphlet is supposedly illegal under the Cancer Act of 1939, and these church members are the complete scum of the earth of deserve to be thrown in prison. :rolleyes:

No, I think that if a rule is a rule, there is probably good reason for that rule. Especially if you are talking about a 6 year-old. I can see what you are saying for a child 12 or older. But a kid under 12? No, I think it is far more important you teach/establish respect, especially for one's elders. Call me "old school" on this if you like, but I do think that respect is incredibly important.

There's a huge difference...a WORLD of difference.... between a 6 year-old, and 33 year old parent. (I'll be 33 by the time my kids are 6.) Their opinions are not equal to my own. They don't even a tenth of all that I know. They have not experienced what I have experienced. They have no way of weighing several different options, and making a well-informed decision.

In fact, that is true up until between the ages of 17 and 22, depending on how quickly a young person matures into an adult. Kids, up until the ages specified, do not, and cannot make well-informed decisions. I suppose they CAN, but statistically, they don't have that capability very often. There's a reason why there is an alcohol age limit. A voting age limit. An age limit to drive, and get a job. Why all the different age limits vary for each increasing level of responsibility society gives to young people.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way! There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly. I will feed them the best and healthiest foods, that will taste pretty damned good anyway.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment, they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?" But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.

bigred

21st April 2011, 07:12 PM

Is it wrong?
By golly no! Teenagers becoming parents is a brilliant idea!

Common sense: the ultimate oxymoron.

Piscivore

22nd April 2011, 10:12 AM

Ok, but what about when they are older, and they much follow the law to the T?
Who said they 'must'? I don't "follow the law to a 'T'", why should they?

No matter what one's intentions are, and how well-thought-out their actions might be, the law is the law.
"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
Martin Luther King

Just because "a law is a law" doesn't mean it's good, adequate, reasonable, or beneficial. I've raised humans, not slaves.

You should take a peek at the one thread titled "Is this illegal in the UK?" The poses the questions about the legality of one ambiguous pamphlet that is handed out on the streets, urging cancer patients (among other people with different types of illnesses) to come in, take a few minutes out of their day, sit down, and pray.

Apparently, such a pamphlet is supposedly illegal under the Cancer Act of 1939, and these church members are the complete scum of the earth of deserve to be thrown in prison. :rolleyes:
I'm not interested in your disputes from other threads.

No, I think that if a rule is a rule, there is probably good reason for that rule.
This is veering off topic, but while I'll conceed there are almost always reasons for rules, whether they are "good" reasons- and especially who they are "good" for- is highly subjective.

Especially if you are talking about a 6 year-old. I can see what you are saying for a child 12 or older. But a kid under 12? No, I think it is far more important you teach/establish respect, especially for one's elders. Call me "old school" on this if you like, but I do think that respect is incredibly important.

I've taught them to respect people, not institutions- including governments, religions, laws, and traditions. And I've taught them to respect people's actions more than their attributes. And I've taught them to respect themselves first and foremost. I don't believe anyone "deserves" more respect than anyone else does simply because they were born first.

There's a huge difference...a WORLD of difference.... between a 6 year-old, and 33 year old parent. (I'll be 33 by the time my kids are 6.) Their opinions are not equal to my own. They don't even a tenth of all that I know. They have not experienced what I have experienced. They have no way of weighing several different options, and making a well-informed decision.
Exactly, that's why you're the one with the responsibility- including the responsibility to teach the kid what you know so they know it too. Where did I say otherwise?

In fact, that is true up until between the ages of 17 and 22, depending on how quickly a young person matures into an adult. Kids, up until the ages specified, do not, and cannot make well-informed decisions.
Not on their own. But contrariwise, they are not dim little robots that are only capable of ignorant obedience. It's like the old apprenticeship system. A master blacksmith doesn't take on a young apprentice assuming he can forge a master blade, but neither does he have the boy do nothing but pump the forge bellows for 10 or more years and then expect him to be able to shoe a horse the next day. You make them do what they can- maybe even a little more than you think they can- every day, so their abilities and skills improve.

I suppose they CAN, but statistically, they don't have that capability very often.
Do you have those statistics, or are you just borrowing a science-y sounding word to lend your statement credibility?

There's a reason why there is an alcohol age limit. A voting age limit. An age limit to drive, and get a job. Why all the different age limits vary for each increasing level of responsibility society gives to young people.
Yes, convenience. It is too expensive- in terms of manpower, time, and effort- to determine each person's limits on an individual basis. Some people can handle alcohol at a very young age- my kids have tried it and they don't care for it. Some adults, even into their twilight years, are demonstrably unable to handle it at all. Some farm kids drive around their private property as early as ten- as my father did. As an insurance worker, I assure you there are thousands of adults that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Same with every one of your other examples. there is a reason these "age limits" vary so much from country to country, state to state, county by county- sometimes even city to city.

Don't mistake ad-hoc social age limits for biological facts about development.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way!
Wait, who is the six year old here? I can just see your little fists balled up when you say that. :)

There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.
Where did I say otherwise?

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.
Why so late? I let my kid go to California with a friend and his family when he was eight.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment,
What sort of thing "deserves punishment"?

they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?"
And why can't you do that without the "punishment"? What form of "punishment" do you mean? What do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.
You keep mentioning "negotiation". You have even suggested that it is the only alternative to "punishment"- by which I gather from the context you mean corporal punishment- is mollycoddling and bribery (another false dichotomy- why are spankers so fond of this fallacy?)

Where have I suggested either "negotiation" or bribery?

Nihilianth

22nd April 2011, 12:08 PM

Who said they 'must'? I don't "follow the law to a 'T'", why should they?

"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
Martin Luther King

Just because "a law is a law" doesn't mean it's good, adequate, reasonable, or beneficial. I've raised humans, not slaves.

I'm not interested in your disputes from other threads.

This is veering off topic, but while I'll conceed there are almost always reasons for rules, whether they are "good" reasons- and especially who they are "good" for- is highly subjective.

I've taught them to respect people, not institutions- including governments, religions, laws, and traditions. And I've taught them to respect people's actions more than their attributes. And I've taught them to respect themselves first and foremost. I don't believe anyone "deserves" more respect than anyone else does simply because they were born first.

Exactly, that's why you're the one with the responsibility- including the responsibility to teach the kid what you know so they know it too. Where did I say otherwise?

Not on their own. But contrariwise, they are not dim little robots that are only capable of ignorant obedience. It's like the old apprenticeship system. A master blacksmith doesn't take on a young apprentice assuming he can forge a master blade, but neither does he have the boy do nothing but pump the forge bellows for 10 or more years and then expect him to be able to shoe a horse the next day. You make them do what they can- maybe even a little more than you think they can- every day, so their abilities and skills improve.

Do you have those statistics, or are you just borrowing a science-y sounding word to lend your statement credibility?

Yes, convenience. It is too expensive- in terms of manpower, time, and effort- to determine each person's limits on an individual basis. Some people can handle alcohol at a very young age- my kids have tried it and they don't care for it. Some adults, even into their twilight years, are demonstrably unable to handle it at all. Some farm kids drive around their private property as early as ten- as my father did. As an insurance worker, I assure you there are thousands of adults that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Same with every one of your other examples. there is a reason these "age limits" vary so much from country to country, state to state, county by county- sometimes even city to city.

Don't mistake ad-hoc social age limits for biological facts about development.

Wait, who is the six year old here? I can just see your little fists balled up when you say that. :)

Where did I say otherwise?

Why so late? I let my kid go to California with a friend and his family when he was eight.

What sort of thing "deserves punishment"?

And why can't you do that without the "punishment"? What form of "punishment" do you mean? What do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

You keep mentioning "negotiation". You have even suggested that it is the only alternative to "punishment"- by which I gather from the context you mean corporal punishment- is mollycoddling and bribery (another false dichotomy- why are spankers so fond of this fallacy?)

Where have I suggested either "negotiation" or bribery?

I'm not arguing against any of this word-for-word. It is all entirely subjective. You raise your kids how you will, I raise my kids how I will. If I want to spank my kids once in a while when I deem it necessary, the government and society needs to but-out. If I want to raise my kids to respect their elders, and those n "higher places," I will do so.

I think t is entirely appropriate to teach kids to respect those who are, A) older (meaning an older generation,) and B) those who have already accomplished something in life.

You may not feel obligated to "follow the law to the T," and feel as though you should be able to talk to anyone however you want, but a judge in a court of law sure as heck would never see it in that light. If you ever do happen to find yourself in court, I hope, for your sake, you address the judge as "Your Honor" if he requests that you do so, even if you are not being out-right rude towards him/her. I also hope you have a DAMNED good excuse/evidence for not "following the law to the T." Imagine, if you will, if everyone single driver on the road decided to "not follow the law to the T." (There are already far too many drivers who don't do it to begin with!) Good luck saying to an officer, "But officer, I am a human, not a slave! There was nothing wrong with me cutting through that parking lot stall!" or, "But officer! I am late, and I am only human. Please don't give me a fine for running that stop sign back there, and going 15 MPH over the speed limit." If you plead "not guilty," I hope you don't say the same thing to the judge. I hope you address the judge with the proper respect based on the authority he is endowed with. I would you would treat the judge with more respect than your own child, who is an authority of nothing at all.

Piscivore

22nd April 2011, 12:49 PM

I'm not arguing against any of this word-for-word.
Of course you're not. You don't have any resposnse to most of it that doesn't highlight the weaknesses of your assertions.

It is all entirely subjective. You raise your kids how you will, I raise my kids how I will.
Actually, it is not all subjective. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful. Your underlying assumption they are equivilent is not correct.

If I want to spank my kids once in a while when I deem it necessary, the government and society needs to but-out.
Unless it actually harms the child.

If I want to raise my kids to respect their elders, and those n "higher places," I will do so.

I think t is entirely appropriate to teach kids to respect those who are, A) older (meaning an older generation,) and B) those who have already accomplished something in life.
You can teach them anything you like. Since my kids are older than yours, and will have a head start on "accomplishing things", yours can kowtow to mine like good little proles, I'm okay with that. Somone has to be a minion.

You may not feel obligated to "follow the law to the T," and feel as though you should be able to talk to anyone however you want, but a judge in a court of law sure as heck would never see it in that light. If you ever do happen to find yourself in court, I hope, for your sake, you address the judge as "Your Honor" if he requests that you do so, even if you are not being out-right rude towards him/her. I also hope you have a DAMNED good excuse/evidence for not "following the law to the T." Imagine, if you will, if everyone single driver on the road decided to "not follow the law to the T." (There are already far too many drivers who don't do it to begin with!) Good luck saying to an officer, "But officer, I am a human, not a slave! There was nothing wrong with me cutting through that parking lot stall!" or, "But officer! I am late, and I am only human. Please don't give me a fine for running that stop sign back there, and going 15 MPH over the speed limit." If you plead "not guilty," I hope you don't say the same thing to the judge. I hope you address the judge with the proper respect based on the authority he is endowed with. I would you would treat the judge with more respect than your own child, who is an authority of nothing at all.
Since you don't seem to understand that there are continuums of behaviour vs. ideals, cost/benefit analyses can be applicable to behaviour, and don't seem to think in anything but binary terms, I think we're done here.

Nihilianth

22nd April 2011, 01:49 PM

Of course you're not. You don't have any resposnse to most of it that doesn't highlight the weaknesses of your assertions.

No. Because most of your responses were completely and utterly subjective.

Actually, it is not all subjective. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful. Your underlying assumption they are equivilent is not correct.

Which studies? Obviously, there are parenting techniques which are more productive than others. I never said they were not.

It is incorrect and wrong-headed to think that just because one technique is effective for one set of parents and kids, that same technique will be effective for another set of parents and kids.

Personalities play a HUGE role in how effective any particular technique can be. I don't have the kind of personality to think it's "ok" to negotiate with your kids. If I tell them to do something, I have good reason for telling them to do it. I am the adult in such a relationship.

Unless it actually harms the child.

What, in your opinion, constitutes "harm?" A cracked head, a welt, or just a red spot where the kid has been swatted?

Obviously, i didn't make that statement to mean the government should butt-out if a parent threw their kid across the room head-first into a radiator because they said something back to them.

You can teach them anything you like. Since my kids are older than yours, and will have a head start on "accomplishing things", yours can kowtow to mine like good little proles, I'm okay with that. Somone has to be a minion.

Do you know how to read:

A) older (meaning an older generation,

Did I also mention that people have to "kowtow" to anyone? I gave the example of a judge. Obviously, the judge's ruling is absolute and final (unless you successfully appeal any decision.) Any sort of talking back or rudeness towards a judge will result in him slapping a charge of misconduct in the courtroom on you.

So, are your kids some kind of judge serving in my district or on the Supreme Court of which they will face some day? OOHH!! I didn't think so! But nice try! ;)

Since you don't seem to understand that there are continuums of behaviour vs. ideals, cost/benefit analyses can be applicable to behaviour, and don't seem to think in anything but binary terms, I think we're done here.

UH, what? this is just plain stupid. (You spelled "behavior" wrong btw!)

But if you want to run after attacking me first, that's your prerogative. But only strictly "going by the books" without thinking for yourself and having the ability and skill to come up with contingencies on the fly and knowing your INDIVIDUAL CHILD, as opposed to knowing what some child did in some study, is not only mentally dull, but it is lazy, irresponsible, and actually kind of droll.

Now, if you will, I have a ton of experience with children. No amount of cost/benefit analyses, behavioral studies or any other such studies can always come into play, when you are dealing with children. Humand are incredibly unpredictable. Particularly so, human children.

In fact, I am thinking of a movie. There was a recent movie which was just filmed around the area that I am from. The movie is called "Runaway Train," with Denzel Washington. The movie is about Denzel, who is a railroad engineer, taking a rookie out for the first time. The rookie kid only goes "by the book," but Denzel knows from real experience just how far and how fast to take a train....just how easily he can maneuver his train into a siding, and how closely the entire thing will fit in that siding in case of an emergency. In short, his experience has given him the ability to rely on his well-establish instincts.

Same is said for all professions. Look at baseball. You may know the technicalities of every single pitch. Doesn't mean you have the proper ability to throw any of them. You may know the technicalities of upsetting better's timing. doesn't mean you have the ability to do so, even if you had the ability to pitch any given pitch.

Convention says that several changeups and curveballs in a row will really devastate a batter's timing on trying to connect with a fastball. That doesn't mean a good pitcher will strictly follow what the "books" say.

Another example: The Army trains their soldiers to throw grenades in a strange overhead fashion, keeping your elbow straight. That is the way the Army handbook says you must ALWAYS throw a hand grenade. Hehehe, I have several very close friends who have served in the Army. My brother served in the Navy. Two of my real good buddies served in Iraq, and my brother was stationed in the Persian Gulf around the time the USS Cole was bombed.

According to my friends who were in the Army, when you are down and dirty, in the trenches in the middle of a firefight, a lot of your training takes over. But the best soldiers have other contingencies. Throwing a grenade like a baseball will not only go much further, but will be much more accurate than throwing one like the Army teaches. But the Army's way allows you to stay behind cover easier. Even though the Army handbook says you must ALWAYS throw a grenade the way they specify, and the way you are trained to do, doesn't mean it is always the best way of throwing a grenade. True story: My buddy George was patrolling in a town outside of Falujah. All the sudden, he heard AK fire all around him. He instantly reached for a grenade, while at the exact same moment he saw tracers coming his way from the left, but was kind of far away. As he grabbed the grenade, he had no choice but to throw it like a baseball. Luckily, he was a great outfielder. He knows how to grab a round object at the same exact instant of setting himself up to throw it as efficiently, accurately, and quickly as possible. The enemy only was able to get one burst from his weapon, before he was killed by the thrown grenade. U know him well enough to know for an absolute fact that he was probably able to throw and release that grenade quicker than if he hit the ground first. Even so, he wasn't terribly close to cover, and out in these desert towns, the ground is flat.

My point is that developing a reliable instinct through experience is far more helpful than reading about it in a book or on paper. In the heat of the moment, you rarely have the time to think back and evaluate any given situation. This is why most employers would much rather hire the person with the experience over the person with the education. Obviously, the person with the experience AND education is the most valuable candidate for a job. But experience still trumps written papers. Especially with children.

Meadmaker

24th April 2011, 04:03 PM

quadraginta

24th April 2011, 04:14 PM

Well if that's the case, my kid has never been spanked, but there are plenty of contributors to this thread who would say that the swat to the butt is, in their opinion, in exactly the same category as the series of smacks with the belt.

In my own case, I approve of the former and I disapprove of the latter, but I don't disapprove of the latter very much. I wouldn't take away a child from a parent who uses such techniques.

It's not a struggle between ideologies. It's a struggle between personalities, and, yes, I win for the (almost) sole reason that I am bigger and stronger. When that is no longer the case, when he is a teenager, the (almost) kicks in, because, in reality, it is not just that I am bigger and stronger, but that I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources. In other words, if he wants food, clothing, and consumer goods above and beyond the minimum that I am required to provide by law, it would be wise for him to obey my rules.

It would be nice if, in most cases anyway, there was also a good reason that it is in his best interests to obey my rules for other reasons, and I do my best to try and communicate those reasons to him, and will continue to do this in the future. However, ultimately, the bottom line is all about power. He must do what I tell him to do because I have power over him. On his eighteenth birthday, that all changes, although we might enter into a new phase of voluntary cooperation, e.g. "I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached."

That's all well and good, but what happens when they don't understand why the rule exists, and decide it's ok to break it, but that there is, in fact, a darned good reason the rule exists. What then?

If you tell me that never happened with your kids, I'll call you delusional.

How about pets? Do you think it's a good idea to swat your dogs and cats? Maybe a little bit of the belt every once in a while?

Meadmaker

24th April 2011, 04:21 PM

How about pets? Do you think it's a good idea to swat your dogs and cats? Maybe a little bit of the belt every once in a while?

I usually try to answer every question directed at me under the assumption that it's a sincere question, but this one is not worthy of reply.

Meadmaker

24th April 2011, 04:30 PM

. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful.

I don't believe this statement, although I'm willing to be proved wrong.

The few that I have read have failed to account for a whole host of other factors, and have been very selective about what outcomes are beneficial.

For example, upthread someone said that the APA says you shouldn't spank, and the only more or less objective criteria measured in the outcome is that people are angrier if they were spanked as children.

And? That's bad? All by itself?

Moreover, did they account for other shared social or economic factors that might be correlated with spanking versus not spanking? Could it be that poverty or Chrisitanity makes people angry, and those factors are correlated with spanking?

When I have seen real studies, as opposed to articles about "studies have shown" with no footnotes, the results been ambiguous, or the research sloppy, or some combination.

quadraginta

24th April 2011, 05:17 PM

I usually try to answer every question directed at me under the assumption that it's a sincere question, but this one is not worthy of reply.

I am being completely sincere. In many ways dogs and cats function at the equivalent of a two year old's cognition. Co-existing with them in a home requires quite similar issues of training and communication.

Do you swat your dogs and cats to teach them what behaviors you expect from them?

Meadmaker

24th April 2011, 06:08 PM

Do you swat your dogs and cats to teach them what behaviors you expect from them?

Do you think it would work?

I don't own dogs, and it wouldn't work for cats. There's no point.

quadraginta

24th April 2011, 06:24 PM

Do you think it would work?

I don't own dogs, and it wouldn't work for cats. There's no point.

Within the context of this discussion I don't think the question is whether or not it would work, but whether or not it is the most effective and appropriate training technique in both the short and long term, and whether pain as aversion training is the only practical alternative.

Meadmaker

24th April 2011, 06:54 PM

Within the context of this discussion I don't think the question is whether or not it would work, but whether or not it is the most effective and appropriate training technique in both the short and long term, and whether pain as aversion training is the only practical alternative.

Even within the context of this discussion, I don't think that's the issue at all.

I don't care if what a particular parent does is "the most effective" or "the only practical alternative."

The very use of those terms suggests a level of knowledge that, frankly, I don't think anyone has. I don't think anyone knows "the most effective" method of getting children to turn into a particular sort of adult, nor what an ideal adult would look like, anyway. Even if they did know such a thing, I suspect that implementing that magical "most effective" method would require skills not possessed by a typical parent.

Even if a spanking isn't the "best" way to deal with a situation, it might be the best way that a particular parent knows how to deal with a situation, and it's better than doing nothing.

Piscivore

24th April 2011, 10:18 PM

It's not a struggle between ideologies. It's a struggle between personalities, and, yes, I win for the (almost) sole reason that I am bigger and stronger. When that is no longer the case, when he is a teenager, the (almost) kicks in, because, in reality, it is not just that I am bigger and stronger, but that I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources. In other words, if he wants food, clothing, and consumer goods above and beyond the minimum that I am required to provide by law, it would be wise for him to obey my rules.
That sounds horrifying. Tyranny is the best you can do? I've gotten my kids respect and cooperation because I've demonstrated I've got their best interests at heart, even when I'm acting against their desires- and I've given them as much freedom as possible that didn't interfere with their safety or their development.

Given that I would categorically reject a government that derived its authority from force or coercion, I'd hardly ask a child to accept my authority on those terms.

As I said upthread, I'm not interested in teaching my kids to be obedient for obedience's sake. I want them to lead, not follow. I want them to think, not conform.

It would be nice if, in most cases anyway, there was also a good reason that it is in his best interests to obey my rules for other reasons, and I do my best to try and communicate those reasons to him, and will continue to do this in the future.
I guess I'm luckier than most, then. I don't think I'm anything special, so it must be my kids are just that much more advanced than the average.

However, ultimately, the bottom line is all about power. He must do what I tell him to do because I have power over him. On his eighteenth birthday, that all changes, although we might enter into a new phase of voluntary cooperation, e.g. "I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached."
How sad. Are there any other adults you feel it is acceptable to manipulate in this overt and crass manner, or do you just feel you need to be inherently superior to these particular ones?

That's all well and good, but what happens when they don't understand why the rule exists, and decide it's ok to break it, but that there is, in fact, a darned good reason the rule exists. What then?
Then they'll suffer the consequences I'd already explained to them. And that doesn't mean consequences I impose- the universe does a good job of imposing consequences all on its own.

If you tell me that never happened with your kids, I'll call you delusional.
Of course it has. It's the primary reason they cooperate so well with us now. A smart kid won't touch a hot stove if you tell them it will hurt them after they didn't listen about eating too much candy. Your mileage may vary.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 01:37 AM

I want to clarify what I said above, specifically the parts that seem to be emotional appeals ("horrifying", "sad"). Authority is something that is either given by the subordinate, or taken by the nominal "superior".

Authority that is based on force (i.e. "I am bigger and stronger"), or coercion ("I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources"), or bribery ("I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached.") is authority taken. And that kind of authority is spurious and fragile. As soon as the subordinate either becomes stronger than the ersatz superior, ceases to depend on the bribes or resources with which he is compelled, or simply no longer fears the artificial consequences of disobedience, he will rebel.

Our history and culture is filled with examples. And they are tragic when they involve parent/child relationships. Look around this board, how many posters who are estranged from their parents.

This is what I find horrifying and sad.

Meadmaker

25th April 2011, 04:48 AM

That sounds horrifying. Tyranny is the best you can do?

When all is said and done, yes. Don't get me wrong. You've described how you've raised your kids and the values you have tried to instill in them and it sounds very familiar, because it sounds exactly like what I do. The only exception is that I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it. As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated. As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

I have actually had a couple of conversations with him, at a young age, where I patiently explained the reason behind a rule I imposed, but he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it." That worked every time.

Then they'll suffer the consequences I'd already explained to them. And that doesn't mean consequences I impose- the universe does a good job of imposing consequences all on its own.

That's all well and good, if those consequences aren't too severe. If they happen to involve injury, or, god forbid, fatality there's a problem.

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.

quadraginta

25th April 2011, 05:09 AM

<snip>

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.

I love it when people on the internet lapse into parable. It reminds my of my youth ... and church. That wasn't very convincing either.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

Other kids might have listened to their father because their experience had taught them that the old fart often knew what the hell he was talking about. Fear of retribution isn't the only tool in the tool box. Often it is the least persistent.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.

There's more than one lesson you can take away from that thought.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 07:42 AM

When all is said and done, yes. Don't get me wrong. You've described how you've raised your kids and the values you have tried to instill in them and it sounds very familiar, because it sounds exactly like what I do. The only exception is that I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it. As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated.
Well, my kids did understand that danger, and they understood the instruction that if anyone tried to make they leave the park that they were to hit, kick, pinch, bite, and scream, scream, scream. And that applied at the bus stop, or at school, or any of the many other times they might not be under our immediate shadow. Bad guys don't just happen when you're around, so your "rule" serves your fear, not their safety. They also understood that they could go have fun with their friends without constantly fretting about our line-of-sight or if we were paying attention to them at all times, and that they had no punishment to fear from us because of what someone else did.

As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.
Really? That's just pathetic. You plan on having a sixteen year old child that dates, yet doesn't know about sex. You waiting to explain that that icky sex stuff to him on his wedding night there, sport?

I have actually had a couple of conversations with him, at a young age, where I patiently explained the reason behind a rule I imposed, but he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it." That worked every time.
Why didn't you just tell him why? Or was that the best you can do?

That's all well and good, if those consequences aren't too severe. If they happen to involve injury, or, god forbid, fatality there's a problem.

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.
So, you know what that's worth.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.
Mine wouldn't- because as quad said, my kids know I'm not an idiot or a bully. And you know what? My kids aren't idiots either... so if they tell me to "freeze" I'm going to figure there's some danger I don't perceive and not get all puffed up and indignant that they're defying my authority.

And you know what- sooner or later the girl in your story won't fear her father. If she'd been bullied enough, she'd have done the opposite of what he says, just because he says it, to prove he can't bully her no more.

Fear is a powerful tool for the weak minded to use on a weaker person, but ultimately a poisonous one that will bite you back.

quadraginta

25th April 2011, 08:02 AM

<snip>

Mine wouldn't- because as quad said, my kids know I'm not an idiot or a bully. And you know what? My kids aren't idiots either... so if they tell me to "freeze" I'm going to figure there's some danger I don't perceive and not get all puffed up and indignant that they're defying my authority.

Another anecdote, and not a second-hand one, either.

When my two boys were around four and seven years old we lived in a residential community which was almost stereotypical. No through streets, 1/4 and 1/2 acre lots, neighbors all knew each other and each other's kids, kids playing ball in the road, trick-or-treating on Halloween, etc., etc.

One day they both came running into the house yelling that I had to come and see the elephant.

That's right. "The elephant".

Further efforts at questioning were not a help. In between the jumping up and down they both insisted there was an elephant in the neighborhood. A real one.

So I walked with them a couple of blocks to their friend's house ... and there it was, along with a pony and a chimp, all in their friend's back yard. It turned out that the friend's father was buddies with the owner of a small circus which happened to be passing through town for the county fair, and this happened to coincide with his son's birthday. So they had loaded up a small trailer and brought over a baby elephant and it's little companions.

What I took away from this (along with some cotton candy for the missus) was that I had good reason to pay attention to my boys, and treat them with the respect they deserved.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 09:26 AM

Another anecdote, and not a second-hand one, either.

When my two boys were around four and seven years old we lived in a residential community which was almost stereotypical. No through streets, 1/4 and 1/2 acre lots, neighbors all knew each other and each other's kids, kids playing ball in the road, trick-or-treating on Halloween, etc., etc.

One day they both came running into the house yelling that I had to come and see the elephant.

That's right. "The elephant".

Further efforts at questioning were not a help. In between the jumping up and down they both insisted there was an elephant in the neighborhood. A real one.

So I walked with them a couple of blocks to their friend's house ... and there it was, along with a pony and a chimp, all in their friend's back yard. It turned out that the friend's father was buddies with the owner of a small circus which happened to be passing through town for the county fair, and this happened to coincide with his son's birthday. So they had loaded up a small trailer and brought over a baby elephant and it's little companions.

What I took away from this (along with some cotton candy for the missus) was that I had good reason to pay attention to my boys, and treat them with the respect they deserved.

Seconded. And a cute story. :)

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 09:38 AM

As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated.

Something else occurs to me about this: You are abdicating your responsibility to be alert and attentive to the child by threatening to punish him if he strays out of sight. How is he supposed to know what you can see? If you are so frightened, you should be keeping an eye on him.

Also:
As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

Are teens some species of mogwai, that can only get pregnant after midnight? This is the stupidist reason for a curfew I've yet heard. My kids understand they have a responsibility to get enough sleep so they can be awake and attentive the next day at school, and that is enough. On weekends, they spend the night at friends houses frequently (my daughter is trying to start a theatre group, and my son's friend is spoiled rotten and has every videogame system known to man. :)).

Toke

25th April 2011, 02:38 PM

Are teens some species of mogwai, that can only get pregnant after midnight? This is the stupidist reason for a curfew I've yet heard. My kids understand they have a responsibility to get enough sleep so they can be awake and attentive the next day at school, and that is enough. On weekends, they spend the night at friends houses frequently (my daughter is trying to start a theatre group, and my son's friend is spoiled rotten and has every videogame system known to man. :)).

That reminds me of 20 years ago in highschool when one of the girls were complaining about her silly parents would not let her stay over with her boyfriend.
What did they think went on in the afternoon?
With 17-18 year olds?

There must be some "keeping up appearance" involved.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 03:01 PM

That reminds me of 20 years ago in highschool when one of the girls were complaining about her silly parents would not let her stay over with her boyfriend.
What did they think went on in the afternoon?
With 17-18 year olds?

There must be some "keeping up appearance" involved.

I agree. Our thinking is, if the kids really want to **** they're gonna find a way to make it happen, no matter what kind of restrictions we put on them, how tight we make the bars of the cage, or how short the leash. "Life (and horny teenagers) will find a way." If I could successfully ditch school to play Super Punch-Out at 7-11, they can slip away to get it on (which would probably be a better use of the time, anyway :)).

Therefore, we have few restrictions. Instead, we've focused on making sure the kids understand all the possible implications and consequences of having sex- not just the scary stuff like STDs and pregnancy, but the emotional and social consequences too. Both our children have goals and plans for their lives that don't include the costs of those consequences. That's why we don't mind the 15yo boy going to dinner with his girlfriend and her parents. That's why we didn't mind our 17yo daughter taking walks in the parks with her boyfriend (well, the dude was a complete wimp anyway (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6215929&postcount=10), and his church had them under constant surveillance. To them, a kiss was a sin, practically.) We trust the kids to make good decisions because they are doing so for their own benefit, not ours.

Of course, that doesn't mean the boy can have a sleepover alone with the girlfriend. That's just asking for trouble.

Meadmaker

25th April 2011, 03:14 PM

. How is he supposed to know what you can see?

Because we told him if he can't see us, we can't see him.

Duh. Is that really that hard? And do you seriously think that we stopped watching him and trusted his six year old judgement? Of course not.

There's something I find amusing about all of this. When talking with Steve, you were intensely judgemental. You had the answers. You knew everything. He's wrong. You're right. End of story. Yet, with your own kids, you explain things patiently and they always do the right thing because they know that everything you say is in their best interests and you are not
"an idiot or a bully".

I don't know what you are like in real life, but based on your communication in this thread, you come off as one of those parents who are intensely judgemental about other people's children, but extraordinarily accepting of your own. There are a lot of people like that in the world, and I do not know if, in reality, you are one of them. If you are, could you please stop? It can be really annoying to be around parents who only notice the flaws in other peoples' children.

Meadmaker

25th April 2011, 03:21 PM

Really? That's just pathetic. You plan on having a sixteen year old child that dates, yet doesn't know about sex.

He already knows about sex, at least from a clinical, textbook, physiological, sense. He'll know plenty more as he gets older.

He doesn't know about lust. He doesn't know about passion. He can't. They are only understood by experience. Do you seriously think you can teach your kids about the "emotional consequences" of sexual relationships? Really? You think you can teach them the highs and lows and joys and sorrows by explaining them? You think you can convince them to do the wise and right thing even when their girlfriend or boyfriend is urging them otherwise, and happens to be naked? Really?

Good luck with that. It will probably work. The thing about those consequences that the universe imposes on kids who don't follow wise counsel is that those consequences tend to be quite severe, but occur with low probability. The thing about teenagers is that they are always certain those consequences happen to other people, not them. Most of the time, they're right.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 03:38 PM

Because we told him if he can't see us, we can't see him.

Duh. Is that really that hard? And do you seriously think that we stopped watching him and trusted his six year old judgement? Of course not.
Then why threaten to punish him? If he's never out of your sight, he can't break the rule, right?

There's something I find amusing about all of this. When talking with Steve, you were intensely judgemental. You had the answers. You knew everything. He's wrong. You're right.
I don't have to know everything to know he was wrong. That's the perfect solution fallacy. He appealed to it too. Do you "rules-is-rules" authoritarian types share the same brain, or is there a guidebook?

Yet, with your own kids, you explain things patiently and they always do the right thing
They most certainly do not always do the right thing. In fact, we discovered recently that my daughter was up to my old trick of making herself "invisible" and reading during math class. Turns out all the work she's doing for her three AP classes is starting to burn her out. Should we "punish" her for that?

because they know that everything you say is in their best interests and you are not "an idiot or a bully".
Yes, the ensuing discussion, while occasionally heated, was productive for just these reasons.

I don't know what you are like in real life, but based on your communication in this thread, you come off as one of those parents who are intensely judgemental about other people's children, but extraordinarily accepting of your own.
I'm intensely judgemental of everyone. Including myself. I just happen to be extraordinarily pleased with my kids and their behaviour- especially compared to their alleged peers. And some alleged adults. That's not always the case. Don't get me started on my daughter's standards of cleanliness with regard to her bedroom.

There are a lot of people like that in the world, and I do not know if, in reality, you are one of them. If you are, could you please stop? It can be really annoying to be around parents who only notice the flaws in other peoples' children.
What annoys you isn't a terribly compelling factor in modifying my behaviour. Especially when it's based on eroneous assumptions.

Emet

25th April 2011, 03:44 PM

Fear is a powerful tool for the weak minded to use on a weaker person, but ultimately a poisonous one that will bite you back.

If I had a sig here at the JREFF, I would steal that. :)

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 04:19 PM

He already knows about sex, at least from a clinical, textbook, physiological, sense. He'll know plenty more as he gets older.

He doesn't know about lust. He doesn't know about passion. He can't.
Why not? Is he a robot?

They are only understood by experience.
Yes, but the great thing about humans is that we can learn from other people's experiences. That's the whole reason we invented storytelling. In fact, it may even be an evolutionary adaptation.

Do you seriously think you can teach your kids about the "emotional consequences" of sexual relationships?
I can explain what they were for me. I can give them information that others have reported. I can give them an idea of what they might expect so they can prepare for it.

Can I tell them exactly what's going to happen every time they get in a car? No. Does that mean they cannot understand drving? Should I just tell them "cars are bad" and ground them if I find a driver's manual in their posession?

Really?
Yes.

You think you can teach them the highs and lows and joys and sorrows by explaining them?
I can give them an idea. So can lots of other people. It's called "literature". Look into it.

You think you can convince them to do the wise and right thing even when their girlfriend or boyfriend is urging them otherwise, and happens to be naked? Really?
It's worked so far. You're talking in hypotheticalls, I'm dealing with two real, live teenagers here. I'm going to go with observed results over your arm-waving speculation, thanks.

ETA: Really, you're just making my point for me. No amount of blind obedience is going to prevail against these urges, is it? And if the kid is just taught to obey, and not think, the've got nothing else to use, do they?

Good luck with that. It will probably work.
Yup. and yours probably won't. Keep your luck, you'll need it.

The thing about those consequences that the universe imposes on kids who don't follow wise counsel is that those consequences tend to be quite severe, but occur with low probability.
What orifice did you pull "low probability" out of? Both my kids personally know several people in their school who have had unplanned pregnancies. In fact, the elder brother of the Boy's previous girlfriend (and the Boy's bandmate) was a teen father.

The thing about teenagers is that they are always certain those consequences happen to other people, not them.
I've heard this said as a folksy generalisation. Do you have any evidence it is actually true?

And yes, they've been warned about this possibility.

Most of the time, they're right.
Are they?

Niggle

25th April 2011, 04:37 PM

Not true entirely, though I agree some are... really out there. I am a teen parent, I constantly ask questions, and im normally reading some type of book or watching an educational channel. I do have plans for my life, and im happy with my life. Though I resorted to the Army, Im doing a Medical feild, also planning on going to a college to get myself a degree to become a PA. Sound like a "stupid teenage parent"? I have know many of my friends with this same incident become successful.

Bully for you.

What about your pregnant 15-year-old girlfriend? What did she want to do with her life before she got pregnant? How are you going to help her get there now with a child in tow?

Don't be so selfish. You're not the only person to consider in this equation.

Piscivore

25th April 2011, 05:27 PM

If I had a sig here at the JREFF, I would steal that. :)

Thanks. :)

Meadmaker

25th April 2011, 06:48 PM

Then why threaten to punish him? If he's never out of your sight, he can't break the rule, right?

Surely you jest. If I assume that I will be perfect and never lapse for a minute, then my six year old boy could do whatever he willed and I would be there to protect him. Alas, things happen that cause even well meaning parents to fail at the task of keeping their eyes on the kid. This is especially true for parents with more than one kid. If one runs off in one direction and the other runs off in the other, it doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, you can't see both of them. So, I explain to him why it is so important that he never go where he can't see me in those circumstances. And just in case he doesn't really appreciate the need for the rule, I explain to him that he will be in trouble if he decides not to follow the rule.

I don't have to know everything to know he was wrong. That's the perfect solution fallacy. He appealed to it too. Do you "rules-is-rules" authoritarian types share the same brain, or is there a guidebook?

I don't know how to tell you this, but you seem much more of an authoritarian than I am.

For one thing, I don't know whether or not Steve was wrong, and so I will let him do as he will. I certainly would not create laws that would punish him for his choices, and I would limit my disapproval to some kindly advice that he can accept or reject as he sees fit. You don't seem nearly so accepting.

Should we "punish" her for that?

Insufficient data. If it were my kid, I would try and figure out as much as I could about the real story, and make a decision from there. There are circumstances where I would. There are circumstances where I would not.

Why not? Is he a robot? (In regards to experience of lust and/or passion.)

He's twelve. When it comes to sex, love, grief, or anything else that tends to be associated with strong emotions, no literature in the world can substitute for the real thing, and when it comes to lust, I'm confident he hasn't experienced the real thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to prepare them, but have realistic expectations.

It's worked so far.

Good. Congratulations. However, there's only so much you can know about that, isn't there? I have no idea whether or not it has worked so far, but I do know that there are a whole bunch of parents who assumed it had worked so far, until they discovered incontrovertible evidence that it had not.

You just seem extraordinarily confident that your methods will achieve the desired results, and I might add that in your conversation here, you seem willing to take the credit for that. Your kids will ultimately succeed or fail on their own. You know that, of course, on an intellectual level, anyway.

Piscivore

26th April 2011, 09:37 AM

Surely you jest. If I assume that I will be perfect and never lapse for a minute, then my six year old boy could do whatever he willed and I would be there to protect him. Alas, things happen that cause even well meaning parents to fail at the task of keeping their eyes on the kid. This is especially true for parents with more than one kid. If one runs off in one direction and the other runs off in the other, it doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, you can't see both of them.
Which is why, given a typical child's propensity for "running off" and getting distracted, I chose to prepare the kids for what they might encounter, rather than scaring them into staying close. While such fear may be convenient for you in the short-term present, it will become a hinderance in their later life when they need to be exploring outside and reaching beyond the nest. Or did you plan on keeping them dependant on you as adults too?

So, I explain to him why it is so important that he never go where he can't see me in those circumstances. And just in case he doesn't really appreciate the need for the rule, I explain to him that he will be in trouble if he decides not to follow the rule.
So do I... but I don't threaten to be the trouble.

I don't know how to tell you this, but you seem much more of an authoritarian than I am.
Aw, that's precious. Baseless tu quoques are always a solid argument. :)

For one thing, I don't know whether or not Steve was wrong, and so I will let him do as he will. I certainly would not create laws that would punish him for his choices, and I would limit my disapproval to some kindly advice that he can accept or reject as he sees fit. You don't seem nearly so accepting.
Don't I? perhaps you can quote me where I advocated "creating laws" or "punishing his choices"? I seem to have forgotten them.

I said he was wrong, because in my experience he is. I didn't ever say he wasn't completely free to **** up his kid if he wants to. I did say that our society may disagree at some point (and is trending that way), but if you think I dictate what society thinks or does you are giving me way too much credit.

Insufficient data. If it were my kid, I would try and figure out as much as I could about the real story, and make a decision from there. There are circumstances where I would. There are circumstances where I would not.

in which circumstances would you "punish", what form would that "punishment" take, and what do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

(In regards to experience of lust and/or passion.)

He's twelve. When it comes to sex, love, grief, or anything else that tends to be associated with strong emotions, no literature in the world can substitute for the real thing,
I made no such claim. I said it would help prepare him. No flight simulator will ever substitute for actually flying a plane, but it can give one an idea what to expect.

and when it comes to lust, I'm confident he hasn't experienced the real thing.
You don't think a twelve year old boy has experienced lust yet? :)

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to prepare them, but have realistic expectations.
Which expectations you think I have do you feel are not "realistic"?

Good. Congratulations. However, there's only so much you can know about that, isn't there? I have no idea whether or not it has worked so far, but I do know that there are a whole bunch of parents who assumed it had worked so far, until they discovered incontrovertible evidence that it had not.
Is that the best argument you have? "Ah, um... but it might not work, huh"?

I've told you why I made the decisions I have, and what outcomes I expect. Why haven't you? Have you even thought about parenting at all, or are you just doing what everyone before you did, automatically, routinely?

You just seem extraordinarily confident that your methods will achieve the desired results,
It has so far, even better than my hopes and expectations.

and I might add that in your conversation here, you seem willing to take the credit for that.
What's wrong with that? They didn't parent themselves.

Your kids will ultimately succeed or fail on their own. You know that, of course, on an intellectual level, anyway.
Of course I know it. I've said it overtly. That's the entire basis of my parenting- turning them into responsible, independent adults. That means thinking for themselves, making their own decisions, accepting their consequences, and livng the life they choose for themselves.

What are you trying to make of yours- compliant, ignorant, frightened robots?

Meadmaker

26th April 2011, 10:14 AM

So do I... but I don't threaten to be the trouble.

That is indeed the difference. The trouble they might encounter if they run away (that of rape, murder, that sort of thing) is highly unlikely, and if I managed to explain it successfully would frighten the bejeezus out of them. The problem of an angry father is much easier to understand.

Aw, that's precious. Baseless tu quoques are always a solid argument. :)

Well, you are calling me an authoritarian. I'm not. And there is no reason to assume that I am based on what I have said. I tend to think of my kid as an individual over whose thoughts I have very close to zero influence. I don't teach him my rules in order that he might experience the wisdom of the ages and emulate an authority figure. It was simple expediency.

Take the example I started with. I told my kid that when I said it was time to go, he had to go, and once in a great while, I reinforced that message with a swat to the butt. Why? I suppose I could come up with some highly justified moral reasoning and blah...blah....blah...blah. In reality, I was tired of playing dinosaur games, wanted to leave the house for some reason and couldn't leave him alone. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. I win, because I'm bigger.

I don't have any pretentions of being the wise old man who lays down the law. I just want to not have an argument every time I want one thing and he wants another.

In most other cases, there are examples where I think it is in his best interest to do something. He sometimes thinks otherwise. In those cases where I am certain it is in his best interest, I try to persuade him, but if I fail to do so, I force him. Later on, he can decide whether I made the right decision.

In the age old argument of "nature vs. nurture", I've become persuaded that nature is far more important. Maybe I'm wrong.

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom, which you impart to your children. You think that because you are not literally forcing them to do things, you aren't an authoritarian, but I get the impression that you are constantly forcing your opinions onto a captive audience. They really are a captive audience. You understand that, right? If you want to explain something to them, you don't let them slam the door in your face, do you?

Just because your techniques aren't physical, don't think you are not an authoritarian.

in which circumstances would you "punish", what form would that "punishment" take, and what do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

In similar circumstances, I recently limited time on video games. I have docked allowances for comparable situations. However, my kid is younger and circumstances are not the same. Twelve year olds aren't teenagers.
You don't think a twelve year old boy has experienced lust yet? :)

I guess I was a late bloomer. I certainly hadn't. I had a crush on a girl at that age, but it's hardly the same thing. If he has experienced it, he hides it well.

Of course I know it. I've said it overtly. That's the entire basis of my parenting- turning them into responsible, independent adults. That means thinking for themselves, making their own decisions, accepting their consequences, and livng the life they choose for themselves.

And I don't think you can "turn them into" much of anything. Must go back to work now, though.

Piscivore

26th April 2011, 10:58 AM

That is indeed the difference. The trouble they might encounter if they run away (that of rape, murder, that sort of thing) is highly unlikely, and if I managed to explain it successfully would frighten the bejeezus out of them. The problem of an angry father is much easier to understand.
So your kid is just not smart, is that it?

Well, you are calling me an authoritarian.
Yes. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian)
"au·thor·i·tar·i·an

–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. "

I'm not. And there is no reason to assume that I am based on what I have said.
...I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it....

...he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it."
Sounds like it to me.

I tend to think of my kid as an individual over whose thoughts I have very close to zero influence. I don't teach him my rules in order that he might experience the wisdom of the ages and emulate an authority figure. It was simple expediency.
More "perfect solution" fallacy. If one doesn't have 'the wisdom of the ages' then **** teaching the kid anything, just make sure the little git isn't inconveniencing you too much. Is that it?

Take the example I started with. I told my kid that when I said it was time to go, he had to go, and once in a great while, I reinforced that message with a swat to the butt. Why? I suppose I could come up with some highly justified moral reasoning and blah...blah....blah...blah. In reality, I was tired of playing dinosaur games, wanted to leave the house for some reason and couldn't leave him alone. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. I win, because I'm bigger.

I don't have any pretentions of being the wise old man who lays down the law. I just want to not have an argument every time I want one thing and he wants another.
Yes, that's why I called it "bullying" and "coercion".

In the age old argument of "nature vs. nurture", I've become persuaded that nature is far more important. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yes. Yes you are. They are both important (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture):
...since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge.

And you've decided to be 'persuaded" by the option that lets you wash your hands of a large part of your parental responsibility. Funny, that.

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom, which you impart to your children.
I do have a certain level of confidence in many of my opinions, because I try to question and examine each one first. I'm completely up front about the possiblity I'm wrong, and I cop to it when I'm shown to be (do not this take more than just bare assertion, however).

You think that because you are not literally forcing them to do things, you aren't an authoritarian,
You read minds? You know what I think?

You really don't have the first clue what I'm all about, do you?

but I get the impression that you are constantly forcing your opinions onto a captive audience. They really are a captive audience. You understand that, right?
A mind reader, and patronising based on "impressions" to boot. You're delightful! :D

If you want to explain something to them, you don't let them slam the door in your face, do you?
I can't (and wouldn't) stop them from not heeding, so figuratively- yes, yes I do. I'm frequently telling them I don't have all the answers, and even the ones that worked for me might not for them.

Just because your techniques aren't physical, don't think you are not an authoritarian.
Explain what you think my "techniques" are, and how they are secretly "authoritarian". Otherwise, you're still just name-calling.

In similar circumstances, I recently limited time on video games. I have docked allowances for comparable situations. However, my kid is younger and circumstances are not the same. Twelve year olds aren't teenagers.
I wasn't asking for advice. What do you think this "punishment" accomplishes?

I guess I was a late bloomer. I certainly hadn't. I had a crush on a girl at that age, but it's hardly the same thing. If he has experienced it, he hides it well.
He'd have to, wouldn't he? Who knows what kind of threat or restriction you'd put on him.

And I don't think you can "turn them into" much of anything.
That certainly seem to be what you're aiming for. "Not much of anything".

Piscivore

26th April 2011, 11:27 AM

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom...

And yet, I'm asking you questions, while you are telling me what I think. :D

Meadmaker

26th April 2011, 01:35 PM

So your kid is just not smart, is that it?

Yes. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian)
"au·thor·i·tar·i·an

–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. "

Sounds like it to me.

More "perfect solution" fallacy. If one doesn't have 'the wisdom of the ages' then **** teaching the kid anything, just make sure the little git isn't inconveniencing you too much. Is that it?

Yes, that's why I called it "bullying" and "coercion".

Yes. Yes you are. They are both important (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture):

And you've decided to be 'persuaded" by the option that lets you wash your hands of a large part of your parental responsibility. Funny, that.

I do have a certain level of confidence in many of my opinions, because I try to question and examine each one first. I'm completely up front about the possiblity I'm wrong, and I cop to it when I'm shown to be (do not this take more than just bare assertion, however).

You read minds? You know what I think?

You really don't have the first clue what I'm all about, do you?

A mind reader, and patronising based on "impressions" to boot. You're delightful! :D

I can't (and wouldn't) stop them from not heeding, so figuratively- yes, yes I do. I'm frequently telling them I don't have all the answers, and even the ones that worked for me might not for them.

Explain what you think my "techniques" are, and how they are secretly "authoritarian". Otherwise, you're still just name-calling.

I wasn't asking for advice. What do you think this "punishment" accomplishes?

He'd have to, wouldn't he? Who knows what kind of threat or restriction you'd put on him.

That certainly seem to be what you're aiming for. "Not much of anything".

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

Piscivore

26th April 2011, 02:14 PM

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

I thought you were somehow trying to make a valid, reasoned argument. I didn't realise you were just playing to an audience.

That just reinforces my opinion that people who go for the "rules is rules" mindset just do so because it's easier than thinking.

Nihilianth

26th April 2011, 05:08 PM

sillyhead

26th April 2011, 05:27 PM

My advice is to get yourselves into a parenting class asap. They are free in most places, and definitely on base. It will help you communicate, rather than attack, and it sounds like you need to do that before the baby is even born. Your gf too, probably. You say your relationship is a happy one, and that you're going into the military, so I'd say, hell, hurry up and sign those papers, then marry her so she'll have adequate health care. Otherwise, get her in the system so that she can get prenatal care.

That's my anything.

RPG Advocate

27th April 2011, 03:53 PM

The authoritarian parenting style advocated by SteveHamilton, Nihilianth, and Meadmaker can cause lasting damage. My father's distant and demanding parenting probably exacerbated my communication issues (I'm a high-functioning autistic) and contributed to my depressive tendencies as an adult. Once I graduated college, I gave him an ultimatum: unconditionally apologize and admit the error of his parenting methods, or never see me again. It's now been a decade since I last saw him.

Authoritarianism may be "expedient" as Meadmaker puts it, but doing the expedient thing rather than the right thing too often can lead to a child, or worse, an adult, who hates you more than anyone else in this world.

No Nice Things

27th April 2011, 06:23 PM

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

Actually, while I may not necessarily agree with every single thing he's saying, I'm finding the discussion quite interesting and informative.

Meadmaker

27th April 2011, 07:38 PM

The authoritarian parenting style advocated by SteveHamilton, Nihilianth, and Meadmaker can cause lasting damage.

I find the characterization of me as "authoritarian" extremely amusing. I hesitate to speak for him, but I suspect Nihilanth feels the same way.

Let me go over my philosophy as a parent, First what attributes make a "good" parent. I can think of three that I think are very important.

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

Second, what's the goal of a good parent? Piscivore said he wants to "turn them into" responsible adults. It sounds a bit manipulative to me, but that's just me. At any rate, that's not my goal. My goal is to keep him alive and safe, and educate him so that when he becomes an adult, he'll have the tools he needs.

Of those two, which sounds more authoritarian?

But....but...but...Piscivore says I'm an authoritarian. What's up with that? He even quoted my own words to prove it. Here's what he quoted:

...I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it....

...he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it."

What's lacking from the above is any indication of how often this happens. In my case, it's rare. There isn't much need for it. When there is, though, I don't back down. If I did, that would be the "indecisive" that I said was associated with being what I consider to be a bad parent. My kid and I could argue all day long about whether or not we ought to do something that I think was a bad idea. What would we accomplish? A lot of time wasted, and a lot of stress, and probably some hurt feelings, because most people when they argue like that end up saying hurtful things when they try to make a point. (They use words like "horrific" and "pathetic" and all sorts of negative characterisations.) So, in my house, we don't do that.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

Is it working? Piscivore seems to think that I'm doing something wrong, and it seems I am aiming for "not much of anything". I suppose we could play dueling accomplishments, but that's not really my style. I'm satisfied, and it seems we both have children that have impressed a fair number of people in a fair number of ways. I'm sure we both have trophy shelves and report card drawers and medals and certificates to show off to grandparents. He thinks he had a lot to do with that. I think I'm mostly along for the ride.

Again, which one is more authoritarian?

Oh, and what about the spanking and the belts or the timeouts? What about beating your kids or boring them to death? Surely, that's what determines whether someone is authoritarian or not, isn't it?

I don't think so. If you are arbitrary and coercive, that's pretty authoritarian, regardless of the techniques. Compared to the three traits I mentioned before. I don't think the specific techniques mean as much as a hill of beans. I will agree that if you are incosistent and indecisive, it's even worse if you have a tendency to smack people with a belt. So, my approach to Steve was to assure him that he had a very difficult time ahead of him and he had to follow his own path, but that the path he was talking about had been used for centuries and really couldn't be all that bad. Had the conversation gone on longer, I might have encouraged him to make sure he thought about things and perhaps reconsider some decisions, but above all, "To thine own self be true", just be consistent about it.

Piscivore was more into the, "You're doing it wrong and should stop." mode of things. Sounds vaguely authoritarian to me.

Nihilianth

27th April 2011, 08:24 PM

I find the characterization of me as "authoritarian" extremely amusing. I hesitate to speak for him, but I suspect Nihilanth feels the same way.

I could not have said what you have said better myself. Though, I would like to add:

If I tell my kids to do something, like you I expect them to do it without much argument. IF there is time, I will explain to them the reason for my decision in a reasonable manner. If there is no time, like if I am late for a meeting, or getting them to their game game or what have you, there is no time. If they disobey and act like a jerk about it, I'll smack them to get their attention. Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

Later on in the day, when things are settled down, I will sit down and have a talk with my kids, asking them why they were hit, and why they might have deserved it. I want them to also tell me why I made the decision I did. This is a great way to make sure they understood what the consequences of their choices and actions were, and what my position was.

Like you, I merely only intend to arm them with the tools they need when they get older. These tools include "responsibility, respect, and accountability."

When they turn 18, I expect them to make their own decisions about whether to move on to college, or stay at home to work while paying room and board. When they turn 18, they are, for the most part, going to be on their own. All rules will be lifted, except for taking care of household needs such as cleaning their rooms, doing their dishes, and the like. They will be allowed to come and go as they please. If they are drinking underage, I will not keep them from doing so. They will have the law to deal with like all other adults have.

If they do decide to go to college and it is a local college, they can are most certainly welcome to stay at home and continue on as kids under my roof.

This all depends on our relationship when they are older. If they have the same relationship with me as I have with my father, I will probably be very lenient. If they are very good kids who never get into trouble, respectful, and courteous and so forth, without going to college, there are many other options and decisions I am wiling to make.

But like I said before, the "right" or rather "best" decisions a parent makes, depends on the children, the parents, and their relationships. Making such blanket statements as "you should NEVER spank your kids!" is unhelpful, and doesn't take individual personalities and inter-personal relationships into account.

Emet

27th April 2011, 09:10 PM

Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

Tsukasa Buddha

27th April 2011, 09:31 PM

Actually, "Authoritarian" is a recognized parenting style in Psychology and sounds quite similar to what some here are advocating:

Authoritarian Parenting
In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, "Because I said so." These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. According to Baumrind, these parents "are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (1991).

Linky. (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-style.htm)

Piscivore

27th April 2011, 09:50 PM

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

Maybe there is help for these guys. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155251/cartman-vs-the-dog-whisperer) :)

RPG Advocate

27th April 2011, 09:58 PM

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

I object to "consistency" and "believability" on the same grounds: it doesn't matter if you "consistently" and "believably" spank your child, prevent him from going outside, or deny him dinner as a punishment. The things you're doing are still inexcusable.

I disagree 100% when it comes to your explanation of "decisiveness." A child should be able to negotiate most rules and decisions as soon as he is able to understand the concept of negotiating. A negotiated ruleset will have a way higher compliance rate because the child actually has buy-in. Granted, there are a few critical rules (e.g. "you have to go to school") that can't be negotiated, but these are limited.

Second, what's the goal of a good parent? Piscivore said he wants to "turn them into" responsible adults. It sounds a bit manipulative to me, but that's just me. At any rate, that's not my goal. My goal is to keep him alive and safe, and educate him so that when he becomes an adult, he'll have the tools he needs.

The problem is that in many cases, the amount of structure parents believe is necessary to keep children alive and safe is vastly overestimated. Aside from the very young, children should be free to do what they like unless their actions harm others. If they hurt themselves, then that's inherently punishing, no need to add external punishment. But wait! Aren't there pedophiles lurking around every corner waiting to snatch any child that goes astray? Not really. In a study performed in 1999, only 115 children were kidnapped by strangers in the entire country. (source (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf))

Of those two, which sounds more authoritarian?

From what the two of you have said, I'd say you're more authoritarian. The impression I get is that you impose more rules than he does and demand more unconditional compliance of the rules that are set out.

What's lacking from the above is any indication of how often this happens. In my case, it's rare.

For something like that, even once is too much. A child should never have to fear his parents. As I said, that can cause psychological damage, since the child can't escape from an intimidating parent like he could from someone outside the home.

There isn't much need for it. When there is, though, I don't back down. If I did, that would be the "indecisive" that I said was associated with being what I consider to be a bad parent. My kid and I could argue all day long about whether or not we ought to do something that I think was a bad idea. What would we accomplish? A lot of time wasted, and a lot of stress, and probably some hurt feelings, because most people when they argue like that end up saying hurtful things when they try to make a point. (They use words like "horrific" and "pathetic" and all sorts of negative characterisations.) So, in my house, we don't do that.

The implicit assumption here is that the parent is always right. I expect this infallibility stuff from the Catholic Church, not skeptics. In any dispute, the child should be given the opportunity to make his case. It builds argumentation skill and assertiveness. Hell, the child might actually have a better argument than the parent. It's well known that children who are denied a voice by authoritarian parenting styles are more likely to have social problems in adulthood. I'm living proof.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

Why should you always get your way? How arrogant is that? Another possible result is a compromise. Most children except the very young will be reasonable if you treat them reasonably.

Is it working? Piscivore seems to think that I'm doing something wrong, and it seems I am aiming for "not much of anything". I suppose we could play dueling accomplishments, but that's not really my style. I'm satisfied, and it seems we both have children that have impressed a fair number of people in a fair number of ways. I'm sure we both have trophy shelves and report card drawers and medals and certificates to show off to grandparents. He thinks he had a lot to do with that. I think I'm mostly along for the ride.

You're using the wrong metric. Tiger parenting often produces angry, depressed kids who earn a ton of rewards and trophies. The two primary metrics of a "good" parent are (1) whether the child refrains from harming others and (2) whether the child is happy. These two things trump even educational attainment.

Oh, and what about the spanking and the belts or the timeouts? What about beating your kids or boring them to death? Surely, that's what determines whether someone is authoritarian or not, isn't it?

You bet it does. Using non-restraining force on a child should be criminalized.

Meadmaker

27th April 2011, 10:38 PM

Actually, "Authoritarian" is a recognized parenting style in Psychology and sounds quite similar to what some here are advocating:

Linky. (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-style.htm)

Not one person, not even Steve, has come anywhere close to advocating anything remotely like what your quote describes.

Meadmaker

27th April 2011, 10:49 PM

A child should be able to negotiate most rules and decisions as soon as he is able to understand the concept of negotiating.

Got kids? Man, have you got some fun times ahead. Can I watch?

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23. When they are children, their negotiations are "I WANT IT." It takes them a few years after that to really realize the concept of true give and take.

What is it that the kid has to offer me? "If you do what I want, I'll stop screaming?" What does negotiating even mean between one person with power' and one person with none?

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

You bet it does. Using non-restraining force on a child should be criminalized.

That's mighty authoritarian of you, don't you think?

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 12:09 AM

Got kids? Man, have you got some fun times ahead. Can I watch?
That's a really good idea. You might learn something.

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23.

Wow, your kids must really be slow. Wait- I'm sorry, if they are developmentally challenged, I don't have anything to say. I've not had to confront that problem.

My son was developing scientific tests to determine the true identity of the "Santa Claus" that came to the family Christmas party when he was eight, and both of them knew how to construct a basic rational argument before that. We never gave them an allowance (that just teaches entitlement) so if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it, or make some kind of reciprocal offer. They've both been able to reasonably and maturely confront teachers who have made mistakes with their grades or assignments and get the problems resolved to their satisfaction without our interference.

I'm sorry your kids are so incompetent, but please don't imagine his limitations apply to "most kids".

Here's a more typical and realistic view of a child's abilities:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs465.pdf

Tsukasa Buddha

28th April 2011, 01:25 AM

Not one person, not even Steve, has come anywhere close to advocating anything remotely like what your quote describes.

Methinks you doth protest too much?

If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it. As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated. As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

I have actually had a couple of conversations with him, at a young age, where I patiently explained the reason behind a rule I imposed, but he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it." That worked every time.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23. When they are children, their negotiations are "I WANT IT." It takes them a few years after that to really realize the concept of true give and take.

What is it that the kid has to offer me? "If you do what I want, I'll stop screaming?" What does negotiating even mean between one person with power' and one person with none?

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way! There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly. I will feed them the best and healthiest foods, that will taste pretty damned good anyway.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment, they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?" But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.

Your denial is a little extreme, given that the Authoritarian style is quite common. You might be Authoritative if any of you talked about anything but strict rule adherence and punishment for moderating your children's behavior.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 04:45 AM

Like you, I merely only intend to arm them with the tools they need when they get older. These tools include "responsibility, respect, and accountability."

The tools I was thinking of were more like mathematics and ballroom dancing.

The tools you mentioned are, of course, even more important, but they are harder to teach explicitly. I tend to hope they rub off as side effects.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 05:05 AM

I'm sorry your kids are so incompetent, but please don't imagine his limitations apply to "most kids".

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.

You aren't really in much of a position to judge my child's competence, and I really don't feel like getting into some sort of competition where we compare our children's abilities or accomplishments.

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 07:38 AM

The tools I was thinking of were more like mathematics and ballroom dancing.

The tools you mentioned are, of course, even more important, but they are harder to teach explicitly. I tend to hope they rub off as side effects.

That goes with most of your statements so far: 'it's hard, so I don't wanna, I'll just hope it happens magically somehow'. That's not responsible parenting. From what you've said you're just making time and trying to keep the kid from being too much of a bother.

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.
I'm not hurling insults recklessly. I'm highlighting the ridiculous assertions you make by mocking them. Do you have any evidence for them, or are you just say wahtever you feel like that sounds like it will support your claims?

You aren't really in much of a position to judge my child's competence,
You're right, I can only go by what you've said. So far, everything you've said so far indicates your child is either far behind not just my children, but the children people studying child development have examined.

No, I don't really think you kid is developmentally disabled. I think you don't have the first damn clue what you kid is capable of and/or you're intentionally understating his abilities to try and support your assertions.

and I really don't feel like getting into some sort of competition where we compare our children's abilities or accomplishments.
I'm not surprised. You've backed yourself into a cornet with your assertions until they require him to be barely more intelligent than a housepet.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 08:08 AM

That goes with most of your statements so far: 'it's hard, so I don't wanna, I'll just hope it happens magically somehow'. That's not responsible parenting. From what you've said you're just making time and trying to keep the kid from being too much of a bother.

I'm not hurling insults recklessly. I'm highlighting the ridiculous assertions you make by mocking them. Do you have any evidence for them, or are you just say wahtever you feel like that sounds like it will support your claims?

You're right, I can only go by what you've said. So far, everything you've said so far indicates your child is either far behind not just my children, but the children people studying child development have examined.

No, I don't really think you kid is developmentally disabled. I think you don't have the first damn clue what you kid is capable of and/or you're intentionally understating his abilities to try and support your assertions.

I'm not surprised. You've backed yourself into a cornet with your assertions until they require him to be barely more intelligent than a housepet.

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 09:14 AM

Methinks you doth protest too much?

Your denial is a little extreme, given that the Authoritarian style is quite common. You might be Authoritative if any of you talked about anything but strict rule adherence and punishment for moderating your children's behavior.

What I think you are missing is that the statements I have made that are being called authoritarian actually have an extreme anti-authoritarian slant. They are practically a parody of an authoritarian position, and my son recognizes that, which makes him more insightful than some others.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement". So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Piscivore on the other hand has a different approach. "if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it". So, he's setting himself in a position to pass judgement on each and every request.

Who's more authoritarian?

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 09:37 AM

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.
I've said before that "reckless abandon" is incorrect. Is reading comprehension also not a life skill you find important? And it's a pretty funny complaint to make since most of your last dozen posts have been little more than "am not, you are!" See: your most recent post. And on top of that, you've found it necessary to belittle and insult your own child in this discussion merely to try and lend your "benevolent dictatorship" even the bareset hint of legitimacy.

What values do you think I "claim to hold"? You're pretty good at telling me what I think, this should be easy for you.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 09:47 AM

I've said before that "reckless abandon" is incorrect. Is reading comprehension also not a life skill you find important? And it's a pretty funny complaint to make since most of your last dozen posts have been little more than "am not, you are!" See: your most recent post. And on top of that, you've found it necessary to belittle and insult your own child in this discussion merely to try and lend your "benevolent dictatorship" even the bareset hint of legitimacy.

What values do you think I "claim to hold"? You're pretty good at telling me what I think, this should be easy for you.

Cut the inflammatory rhetoric, the insults, the emotionally laden words, the "pathetic", the "horrifying", the "tyranny", the comparison to housepets, that sort of thing.

Do that, and we might have something worth talking about.

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 09:57 AM

Cut the inflammatory rhetoric, the insults, the emotionally laden words, the "pathetic", the "horrifying", the "tyranny", the comparison to housepets, that sort of thing.

Do that, and we might have something worth talking about.

Stop ducking questions under the pretense of delicate sensibilities, and there would actually be something at all to talk about.

What do you think "punishment" accomplishes?
Which expectations you think I have do you feel are not "realistic"?
What values do you think I "claim to hold"?

Emet

28th April 2011, 11:12 AM

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement".

I don't recall that, but I'll assume for the moment you are correct about Piscivore's stance on allowances.

So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Can you explain your rational for why money ties into chores? (it's a sincere question)

I thought most parents assign chores to teach responsibility, contribute to the family unit, and learn skills. They learn to pitch in and help out, which encourages a sense of reward by doing work that’s really needed and contributes to their family. I realize this is not a complete list, and others may have additions or subtractions. Or think I'm wrong.

I also thought most parents give allowances to teach children about money--how to save, and how to make spending choices about what they may purchase with limited funds.

I thought that children at a certain age may begin to actually work for others--mowing the neighbor's lawn, or babysitting in exchange for money. Here they start to learn about earning money, and the possible consequences of not performing well at their job--they may be 'fired'.

Either by what you've written, or perhaps how I interpreted/misinterpreted your stance on allowances, I'm unclear as to the lessons you're teaching your children by tying money to chores.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th April 2011, 01:18 PM

What I think you are missing is that the statements I have made that are being called authoritarian actually have an extreme anti-authoritarian slant. They are practically a parody of an authoritarian position, and my son recognizes that, which makes him more insightful than some others.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement". So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Piscivore on the other hand has a different approach. "if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it". So, he's setting himself in a position to pass judgement on each and every request.

Who's more authoritarian?

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts :p . Of the four parenting styles recognized in psychology, which do you feel you identify with most closely?

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 02:45 PM

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

You're wrong. It works. As I have said, I do it all the time. The dogs are always perfectly well-trained and happy as they grow.

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 02:47 PM

Maybe there is help for these guys. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155251/cartman-vs-the-dog-whisperer) :)

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 03:08 PM

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts :p .

These guys are good at that. :)

Piscivore

28th April 2011, 03:09 PM

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

So you are content to treat children like housepets?

Emet

28th April 2011, 03:18 PM

You're wrong. It works. As I have said, I do it all the time. The dogs are always perfectly well-trained and happy as they grow.

Yes you can hit and smack a dog--that doesn't make it right or advisable. You have no evidence to support your claim. Beating dogs into submission is also often successful.

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

Millan is an ass. He is loathed by veterinary behaviorists, and subscribes to a long ago discredited theory of canine behavior.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th April 2011, 03:24 PM

EXACTLY! Cesar Milan always does that to dogs. "Nipping them in the neck." Dogs do it to each other in the wild as well.

It's funny you should bring him up in this conversation:

Personally, I love my dogs too much to listen to Cesar Millan's way of training. I will not use adverse training on my dogs by any means. Positive reinforcement is a much more efficient and reliable way to train a dog, and to the dog it is a much more fun way to train. And, there are more than one ways to skin a cat, meaning there are more than one way to positively train your dog.

Generally, you will find that adversive dog training is focused around fear and intimidation, and if you ask the top behaviorists, veterinarians, and specialists, you'll find that they will generally all agree that there are better means of training than negative dog training.

Linky. (http://hubpages.com/hub/Cesar-Millan-is-Bad)

Actually, IRL, I've yet to meet a vet or dog trainer who encouraged hitting a dog.

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 06:33 PM

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts :p . Of the four parenting styles recognized in psychology, which do you feel you identify with most closely?

Obviously, any attempt to break all styles into just four categories will have some imperfections, but of the four, authoritative is most accurate.

My biggest objections is that they characterized it as "democratic", which I don't agree with. I do all those things they described, but there isn't a vote taken.

Also, there are situational differences. There is a huge difference between how to deal with a kid who wants to stay up later than you think is appropriate, and a kid who is running through a bookstore screaming. My response to the latter would appear quite authoritarian, but only because we had long ago established that that was not appropriate behavior, and he was fully aware of it. (For the record, my kid does not run screaming through bookstores, and I cannot recall him ever doing so since he gained the power of speech. However, I happened to be near such a child yesterday. Her parents were exercising the "permissive" style of parenting.)

Meadmaker

28th April 2011, 06:49 PM

I don't recall that, but I'll assume for the moment you are correct about Piscivore's stance on allowances.

Can you explain your rational for why money ties into chores? (it's a sincere question).

It's analogous to having a job. You work. You get paid. No work, no pay.
I've read others expressing the point of view you have described, and they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.

In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 09:06 PM

So you are content to treat children like housepets?

Why not? Is that somehow "undignified?"

In case you are wondering, the short answer to your question is: "Not necessarily."

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 09:10 PM

Yes you can hit and smack a dog--that doesn't make it right or advisable. You have no evidence to support your claim. Beating dogs into submission is also often successful.

"Beating dogs" into submission is rarely ever successful, and is disgusting behavior.

Millan is an ass. He is loathed by veterinary behaviorists, and subscribes to a long ago discredited theory of canine behavior.

Not a big fan of him myself, but are you denying the effectiveness of his tactics? He is incredibly successful with some of the worst offending animals in an incredibly short period of time. I have used many of the same tactics as he does before I ever even heard of the guy. It works. All of my dogs have always been extremely well-behaved, fiercely loyal, and incredibly happy, healthy animals.

Emet

28th April 2011, 09:28 PM

"Beating dogs" into submission is rarely ever successful, and is disgusting behavior.

Well, since I've seen dozens of dogs beaten into submission as long term patients in 27 years of clinical practice, I know it's been successful. I agree it's disgusting, but it's also a poor training technique to hit or smack dogs.

Not a big fan of him myself, but are you denying the effectiveness of his tactics? He is incredibly successful with some of the worst offending animals in an incredibly short period of time.

Yes, I'm telling you his training methods, especially for aggression, are ineffective, and downright dangerous. At least according to my behavior textbooks, the hundreds of behavior articles I've read (written by board certified veterinary behaviorists), and the hundred or so continuing education hours I've attended in canine behavior, including 12 hours this year.

Then there's the thousands of patients I've seen, and the dozens of dog trainers I've worked with.

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 09:30 PM

It's analogous to having a job. You work. You get paid. No work, no pay.
I've read others expressing the point of view you have described, and they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.

In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

Yes. When I was a young kid at the age of 8, my parents told me to get my little behind in the kitchen, and begin to learn to cook and bus tables. They gave me an allowance, though they were not obligated by law to do so. (Small family-run businesses are allowed to employ their children at any age, and they don't HAVE to pay them.)

But my parents decided to treat these chores as a job. They paid me a certain amount of money that wasn't a whole lot. I was allowed to do certain things with this money, but they wanted me to "save" a certain amount with each allowance. They taught me about decimals using my money, as well as percentages. They told me to save a certain percentage (starting with 50% at the age of 8, as that was the easiest to figure out.) I got my allowance every week, ($10) and my "objective" was to not have spent $60 at the end of 90 days. In other words, I was to have $60 in my bank account after 90 days. The other money, they told me I could do what I wanted with.

I actually had a hell of a lot more money than they expected. To tell the truth, I didn't even know WHAT to do with the money at that age. So I just simply didn;t really use it.

My parents opened a saving's account, and placed the money in there, until I understood the concept a little better. But they continued patiently to teach me using the same tactic, until I finally became smart enough to realize what I could spend my money on, and what it's value actually meant. (I ended up buying a whole ton of baseball cards over the years, starting around age 12. lol.)

Needless to say, I have always been good with money. Good enough to run the financial aspects of the business when an uncle of mine who handled it was in the hospital for something or other.

By the time I got to college, I was SHOCKED to learn that many of my 20 year old classmates have NEVER held a ob in their lives. I was also very shocked to learn just how precious few knew how to so much write a a check.

I was helping this one kid to find a job, since he was short on cash, and his parents couldn't support him from so far away. (Yeah, he lived in the dorms, and had a meal plan with flex dollars. So financial aid took care of all of his most basic needs. But he had a car he wanted to be able to drive around, and needed gas money. He also wanted to go out with us, but nobody wanted to constantly cover him.)

I FINALLY convinced him to look for a job. I told him the Dunkin Donuts down the street was hiring. He said "Oh man, I am NOT working in a fast food place." Which shocked me even more! "Why the F not!?" Damn.

So we went to the mall. He wanted a job at Hot Topic. Didn't even know how to approach the manager on his own and inquire about a job, rather than just simply fill out an application. So I approached the manager for him. The manager was a bit interested, and asked what kind of work experience he had. Well, my buddy said "none." The manager seemed just as shocked as me, for he was quite perplexed. "20 years old, and never held a job?" is what I read on her face. What she actually said was "Well, without prior work experience, I am not at all inclined to hire you. Sorry. But I can suggest you should probably start looking at getting a job at McDonald's, or the Dunkin Donuts down the street that I heard was currently hiring." I laughed. :D

But yeah, money management and social skills are one of my top priorities of teaching my kids starting at a young age.

Nihilianth

28th April 2011, 09:32 PM

Well, since I've seen dozens of dogs beaten into submission as long term patients in 27 years of clinical practice, I know it's been successful. I agree it's disgusting, but it's also a poor training technique to hit or smack dogs.[quote]

Hitting or smacking a dog is not the same as "beating into submission."

[quote]Yes, I'm telling you his training methods, especially for aggression, are ineffective, and downright dangerous. At least according to my behavior textbooks, the hundreds of behavior articles I've read (written by board certified veterinary behaviorists), and the hundred or so continuing education hours I've attended in canine behavior, including 12 hours this year.

Then there's the thousands of patients I've seen, and the dozens of dog trainers I've worked with.

How are they "dangerous?"

Emet

28th April 2011, 09:35 PM

Hitting or smacking a dog is not the same as "beating into submission."

I never claimed it was.

Rasmus

28th April 2011, 11:41 PM

I don't think there is one, right, way to do things. It is the way I do things, and a lot of other people do things.

There might well not be.

However, as an argument that sound bite fails epically.

Just because there might not be just one way of teaching doesn't make any particular approach to teaching good or acceptable, much less optimal.

Assuming there is a number of really good ways of teaching, with none of those being explicitly better than the others, there is still room for lots of not so good ways of teaching and a few very bad ways of teaching. (Read "bringing up kids" for teaching here.)

Also, how many people pick a particualr way should not be confused with an argument for the quality of that particualr way.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about that point of view, though, is that people will say that kids need to have an allowance in order to learn to manage money, and that need to learn to manage money should be separate from doing chores around the house. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the very first element of money management is that you have to get it before you can manage it, and you have to work to get it.

That depends on what you think "first" means here. Yes, in the real world this is the order in which things happen. That doesn't mean that it should be the order in which things are best taught.

There are other benefits for children if they have money: It encourages independence. They are free to make their own decisions. They are empowered to take care of their own needs and desires.

I see no obvious reason why one type of "lesson" should depend on having mastered another. Yes, you will eventually have to work to earn money - but that doesn't mean you'll have to work for everything all your life. (You fed your children when they were babies, right? Did they earn their food? If they work for an allowance now, do they earn even a fraction of what they consume?

In the context of this discussion, the important thing, in my opinion, is that when it comes to money, kids should know what to expect. They should know the rules, know what is expected from them, and know how much freedom they have in getting it all done and in reaping the rewards of their labor.

As an aside, I seem to remember that a poster elsewhere in the forum said their children would not get money for doing chores - chores are part of life and nobody gets paid for them, but they need to be done. Living alone, you have to do them all, living in a family, you have to do some of them - without compensation.

This strikes me as a much better and more precise point than "one has to work to get money." In the end, the things children do for money aren't worth the money they are getting for it, are they?

Meadmaker

29th April 2011, 05:01 AM

There might well not be.

However, as an argument that sound bite fails epically.

If it were an argument for doing things one way or another, then the fact that if failed would be relevant. It's not. It's a simple statement of what I do.

The fact that a lot of parents do it that way was a simple response to Emet's question. In the post which contained the question he stated that "most parents" do certain things. I was noting that I don't, and a lot of other people don't. I haven't seen any actual data that would confirm or refute whether the characterization of "most" is accurate.

Also, how many people pick a particualr way should not be confused with an argument for the quality of that particualr way.

Which is why I'm not all that concerned with what "most parents" do.

As an aside, I seem to remember that a poster elsewhere in the forum said their children would not get money for doing chores - chores are part of life and nobody gets paid for them, but they need to be done. Living alone, you have to do them all, living in a family, you have to do some of them - without compensation.

This strikes me as a much better and more precise point than "one has to work to get money." In the end, the things children do for money aren't worth the money they are getting for it, are they?

When all is said and done, kids will be fed, clothed, and have some quantity of consumer goods, all at the parents' expense. Exactly how that happens varies from family to family, and I don't think one method is "right". Each person or couple with children has to choose a method that feels right for them. As long as the kids somehow contribute to the functioning of the home and as long as somewhere along the line they pick up on the clue that they have to work for a living, everything will be fine.

Let's not lose track of how this came up. RPG suggested that rules should be "negotiated" with kids. I think that's daft. Kids can't actually negotiate anything, because they have no power. We, the parents, hold all the cards. Our allowance agreement was an example of a pseudo-negotiation. I've watched parents who seem to have forgotten who holds the cards, and who really seem to think they have to negotiate with the child to get him to practice good behavior, and I'm really embarrassed for them. Other parents like to feel like they are negotiating with kids, when in reality they are just forcing the kids to come to them with every single need, which makes the parental control feel less explicit. It allows them to keep kids under their thumbs, but it doesn't feel like that's what they are doing.

AmandaM

29th April 2011, 11:57 AM

If they disobey and act like a jerk about it, I'll smack them to get their attention.

:eek:

Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

:eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp

You have GOT to be kidding me.

(recovers from shock) Ok, I come from a family of dog and cat lovers. We had no fewer than 20 dogs when I was growing up (Mom was a softie and took in strays all the time.)

NEVER -- NEVER in my experience with animals have I EVER seen an animal hit, whipped, smacked, or had its nose "rubbed in it" or had any kind of physical punishment applied to it. And all of our dogs were loving, wonderful companions.

The dog we have now (Husky-Beagle rescued as a 5-week old puppy) doesn't know anything about violence and he's just as well-behaved as we could ever want. When he starts to exhibit any kind of inappropriate behavior, a stern No and withdrawal of affection for a few minutes puts him back in line. My husband has a way of just looking at him and pointing his finger that brings the dog in from chasing squirrels (and for a beagle mix, that might as well be some kind of magic!)

I cannot imagine ever hitting a dog, whether with a newspaper or a smack on the butt. I can't imagine why anybody would choose to do that. We get the exact same results without physical punishment AT ALL.

And as for Cesar, I think he's a dork and his show is ridiculous, but I'm no expert. These people, however, are:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90029578219&id=44964919559&ref=share

http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-100/ESQ1006-ESQ100_20-21.FINAL.rev_1

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0612FE355A0C728FDDA10894DE4044 82

http://www.urbandawgs.com/luescher_millan.html

http://www.dogwhispererdvd.com/faq-national_geographic_dog_whisperer.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/CMGPHL9D1N1.DTL

(most of these articles are a few years old because that's when the controversy started brewing, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't changed tactics any.)

QUOTES FROM EXPERTS:
World-renowned dog trainers, behaviorists and veterinarians had all warned National Geographic that Millan’s methods had the potential for disaster. Below are quotes from noted experts:

Dr. Nicholas Dodman - Professor and Head, Section of Animal Behavior
Director of Behavior Clinic, Tufts University - Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
“Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous, and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is that the public does not recognize the error of his ways. My college thinks it is a travesty. We’ve written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years.”

Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA-Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers
“Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards. A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back. I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him. To co-opt a word like ‘whispering’ for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable.”

Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
Co-owner of Animal Behavior Associates, Inc., Littleton, CO
"A number of qualified professionals have voiced concern for the welfare of pet dogs that experience the strong corrections administered by Mr. Millan. My concerns are based on his inappropriateness, inaccurate statements, and complete fabrications of explanations for dog behavior. His ideas, especially those about “dominance”, are completely disconnected from the sciences of ethology and animal learning, which are our best hope for understanding and training our dogs and meeting their behavioral needs. Many of the techniques he encourages the public to try are dangerous, and not good for dogs or our relationships with them ."

Vyolet Michaels, CTC, CPDT (Certified Dog Trainer and Behavior Counselor)
Owner of Urban Dawgs, LLC of Red Bank, NJ
"Cesar Millan employs outdated methods that are dangerous and inhumane. Using a choke chain and treadmill to treat fear of strangers and dogs is completely inappropriate. Hopefully the National Geographic Channel will listen to the scientific community and discontinue production of The Dog Whisperer."

Janis Bradley, Instructor at The San Franciso SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers
Author of the book, "Dogs Bite"
"On his TV show, the main method Millan uses for aggression is aversives (leash jerks, kicks, snaps of the hand against the neck, and restraint, among others) applied non contingently. The aversives are non contingent because they are so frequent that they're not connected to any particular behavior on the part of the dog—the dog gets popped pretty much constantly. This results in a state called learned helplessness, which means the animal hunkers down and tries to do as little as possible. This is what Millan calls "calm submission." It's exactly the same thing you see in a rat in a Skinner box that is subjected to intermittent shocks it can do nothing to avoid. This can happen quite fast, by the way, shall we say in ten minutes? The dangers to the dog are obvious, ranging from chronic stress to exacerbating the aggression, i.e., some dogs fight back when attacked. This latter is the simplest reason that aversives are a bad idea in treating aggression. Even used technically correctly as positive punishment for specific behaviors like growling and snarling, aversives do nothing to change the underlying fear or hostility, so the best you can hope for, in the words of famed vet and behaviorist, Ian Dunbar, is "removing the ticker from the time bomb." Thus such methods substantially increase the risk to humans of getting bitten."

Excerpt of letter from Lisa Laney, Dip. DTBC, CPDT, CBC
to National Geographic before airing “The Dog Whisperer”:
“The intended program depicts aversive and abusive training methods - treatment for some serious anxiety and fear based issues - being administered by an individual with no formal education whatsoever in canine behavioral sciences. The "results" that are shown are more than likely not long lasting changes, but the result of learned helplessness, or fatigue, neither of which impact behavior to any significant long term degree - at least not in a good way. For those of us who are pioneering the effort to end the ignorance that drives the cruel treatment administered upon our canine companions, it is disappointing to see that this programming will reach the masses - especially on the NG Channel. The ignorance that this program perpetuates will give equally ignorant people the green light to subject their dogs to abuse. In turn these dogs will react even more defensively, will bite more people - and end up dead.”

Steve Dale
"I have serious concerns because his methods are often intimidating rather than motivating. On TV, the dogs do comply but often they're being forced to - you can tell by their body language: tail down, mouth closed, ears back, eyes dilated... I argue that motivating leadership is far more effective than leading through intimidation."
Steve Dale is the author of the twice weekly syndicated newspaper column “My Pet World” (Tribune Media Services). He’s also the host of syndicated radio programs Steve Dale’s Pet World, The Pet Minute with Steve Dale; and Pet Central, at WGN Radio, Chicago. Steve is a contributing editor at USA Weekend, special correspondent/columnist Dog World and editor-in-chief of PawPrints (a newsletter for veterinarians). His books include “American Zoos” and “DogGone Chicago.” Steve’s appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show; National Geographic Explorer; Pets Part of the Family on PBS; several Animal Planet Shows; Fox News Channel, and Balance TV (Canada). He was a regular on WGN-TV Chicago. Touted as reaching more pet owners than any other pet journalist, Steve’s a frequent guest expert on radio shows all over America and Canada; he’s been quoted in dozens of newspaper and magazine stories, including the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Redbook. He's certified as a Behavior Consultant by the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, and the recipient of many awards including the prestigious AVMA Humane Award.

From the Urbandawgs website.

AmandaM

29th April 2011, 12:34 PM

Let me go over my philosophy as a parent, First what attributes make a "good" parent. I can think of three that I think are very important.

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

I was never spanked or slapped as a child, and my parents had half a dozen other foster kids who were also not spanked. I think what my parents did RIGHT are the 3 things you mentioned here.

Now I have adult friends who I almost can't stand to be around because they are forever telling their children, "you do that one more time and you'll be in trouble." Obviously "one more time" translates into "keep going until I explode" and what the heck does "be in trouble" mean? There is no consistency.

It just seems logical that the rules should be explicit. You don't need to be a lawyer to be a parent, but if the rule is "Be in the house by the time the streets lights come on," there's not a lot of wiggle room there. "Be in bed by 8pm." Very easy to follow.

The rules in our house were like those giant sawhorses with orange lights you see in road construction. This is a barrier between what you can do and what you can't do. And the punishments for breaking rules were pretty spelled out. If you stay out past curfew, you don't get to go out the next night. If you ditch school for ANY reason, you get some important (to you) privilege taken away. I did it once, and not only got yelled at by the teacher, but I also lost the privilege of going to a Rick Springfield concert with my friend. (Kind of a big deal when you're a 15-year-old girl.) None of the rules were really that ridiculous either -- even as a 10-year-old I thought I had it pretty good compared to other kids who weren't allowed to watch movies, or go dancing, or whatever.

Basically my parents set up house rules in the same fashion as state and local laws. Here is the rule, and here is the punishment for breaking that rule. I know if I speed, I get a $175 ticket. I knew as a kid if I broke a rule, there was a consequence. You learn to decide if it's "worth it" to you to break the rule. I really don't know why my adult friends now can't figure out that setting boundaries is actually EASIER on kids -- they know exactly what's expected of them.

Question - for those of you who weren't spanked or slapped as children, what prevented you from being a horrible brat and getting in trouble all the time? If you didn't fear being beaten, what did you fear? Loss of privileges? Disappointing mom and dad? What?