# Spare not the rod



## GEmatt

_"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die / Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23: 13–14, KJV)_

An endlessly controversial topic that came to mind again, following a confusing thread recently on using physical discipline or punishment with children.

Beating ("smacking" / "spanking") children when they have been bad is seen as vicious, barbaric, simply old-fashioned, helpful, beneficial, or even virtuous, depending on the context, but raises the questions of whether "raising a hand" against a child (whatever that means) can ever be justified, what effects, if any, such action can have on the child's development, and finally, where the line should really be drawn, between a context-specific slap on the backside, and genuine violence against children.

What do forer@s think about this issue?


----------



## maxiogee

I no longer have much respect for the thoughts of those who wrote the Bible.
I do not believe any Divine inspiration lies behind it - the God of the Old Testament was a fickle, violent, demented and child-abusing terror. 

When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot hand over the two angels he was harbouring, he offered them his two daughters so that they could do "to them as is good in your eyes". Similar concern for one's females comes in the Book of Judges when a Levite was staying at a house. The locals came demanding the householder hand over this priest so that they "might know him" - but the householder offered instead his own daughter and the priest's concubine that they "might humble them".

So no, I don't look to that source for my morality or for guidance on interpersonal relationships.


----------



## GEmatt

Cheers, maxiogee. Disclaimer time.

I did not intend to insert a religious angle into this thread. The passage at the top is *only* to illustrate where the expression "Spare the rod" comes from, and reflects no personal convictions on my part. Please be mindful of posts that may be deemed off-topic, and offensive to anyone who _does_ believe in (a) God. I would like for this to be focused on children, values, and how these values may have changed over time (for better? For worse? How is it done in your part of the world? Have we become obsessed with our children?) *This is not a religious debate!  *


----------



## .   1

I twice smacked my daughter when she was little.
I remember each time clearly.
I caused virtually no physical pain but the emotional separation at a time of emotional upset for my child was unbearable.
I am utterly convinced that if I use physical force to enforce discipline I am conveying the absolute message that might is right and who is stronger will do what they want while the smaller and weaker will be abused at will.
Sitting down and actually talking with the kid takes more time but is far more pleasurable for both parties and eminently more beneficial.

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

Why would it be considered a good thing to model our parenting skills on practices that are over 2,000 years old? And don't give me that "tried and true" rationale. Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is an acceptable solution to any problem; and that it's OK to hurt our loved ones if "it's for their own good."  People who abuse their families aren't _born_, they're made.

All arguments about the merits of the Bible aside, we should continue to use corporal punishment with children if we want to have a society like the ones that existed before the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, psychology, women's lib and the flush toilet.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> All arguments about the merits of the Bible aside, we should continue to use corporal punishment with children if we want to have a society like the ones that existed before the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, psychology, women's lib and the flush toilet.


Beautifully said.

.,,


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> Why would it be considered a good thing to model our parenting skills on practices that are over 2,000 years old? And don't give me that "tried and true" rationale. Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is an acceptable solution to any problem; and that it's OK to hurt our loved ones if "it's for their own good." People who abuse their families aren't _born_, they're made.


 
Hi Fenixpollo,

Isn't that a bit generalized? I take your point, of course, but you don't seem to make any distinction between a relatively inoffensive smack on the bottom (designed to shock, _not_ to injure) of the type .,, mentioned, and actual physical/domestic violence.

I was smacked on a regular basis when little, being the adventurous type who tended to get into trouble; no damage was done (I think), I consider myself basically a pacifist, and for all I know, the occasional warning spank might have saved me from doing myself serious damage. I don't condone it and would not smack my own children, but I'm interested in .,,'s example. I can reason with my 7 year-old, of course. But can you make a 3 year-old "see reason"?


----------



## fenixpollo

Not always, but there are other, demonstrated, valid, effective techniques for modifying behavior that are not physical.


----------



## badgrammar

I have, against my own ideology of how to be a good mother, swatted a bottom, probably a total of two times per kid.  I have grabbed an arm and squeezed it a little tightly (combined with the fiercest soul-piercing stare I could manage) to get a point  accross to a child in a moment of crisis, where the child had gone so far beyond reasoning that no words would even make their way to his/her ears.   I'm not proud of it, not now, not at the times when it happened, either.  But I'm not terribly ashamed of it either.  Children need enforcement of limits, and in an exceptional case, some sort of physical "shock" can snap them out of it.  

However, I know in my heart of hearts that on each of the above mentioned occasions, it was not the child who needed the swat or the arm squeeze, it was I who lost control and let my inner three year old take charge of the situation.

Unfortunately, even a good parent (and I believe I'm a good parent) sometimes snaps and goes for something that is not "an effective/acceptable behavior modification technique".  We are still only human.

But I cannot believe the number of children i have seen slapped on the face (usually in public places, but I have also seen a friend do it to her child).  It always leaves me in total shock.  As does the ongoing use of the "Do you want a spanking/Keep it up and you're gonna' get it" threats.  In the States, political correctness has cut down on this kind of public behavior.  In France, you see it a lot more (which is not to say less abuse happens in the home in the U.S., just parents know they don't want others to know about it).


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

fenixpollo said:


> Not always, but there are other, demonstrated, valid, effective techniques for modifying behavior that are not physical.


 
Such as...?  

Look, I am a female, born and raised in a Latin American chauvinist culture, and the jobs I had during my teenage come from a baby-sitter, to a genitor's assistant, to a receptionist, to a salesperson in one of the worst paid and most unsafe 'malls' in the city, and on and on... therefore, you can say I know very well what it is to be young, powerless, discriminated, and all that stuff. The sort of things you see (and live, if you are 'unlucky') in those environments, make you love your parents for teaching you right and -why not-, smacking you once in a while to get you right.

So please, don't come to me saying that an eventual smack on the bottom is the same than being expoiled and humilliated by a boss, or beaten by an abusive spouse!

What I write next is my very personal and subjective point of view, developed (of course) under my own circumstances, culture and family values, so I'd truly appreciate if you guys keep your comments the same way, that is, no judgements or aggressions meant--only opinions.

I remember my parents spanking me as I was growing up; nevertheless, I believe my parents raised me the best they could. I didn't get any psychological traumas, nor resentments, nor broken bones in all those years. 

a) I never (ever!) heard my parents misrespecting each other or saw them "raising a hand" against each other, so no violence or moral deviation lied behind my parents spanking me and my siblings.

b) I love and respect my parents very much (especially my father, who by the way, was the one to 'smack' us), and I hold very dear all the teachings, the morality and other things that conform the parents' legacy to their children.

c) Actually, physical discipline (I believe) saved me a lot of emotional and even physical pain in my life, since its purpose was always reinforcing the verbal discipline we used to receive.

So then, we could say that "spanking" could bring good results while raising kids *if (and ONLY if)* used with the proper balance, motivation, attitude and purpose.

What I remember about it during childhood is that using "the rod" as a mean of correction was not either the one or the main source or approach of discipline at home, and it was used only to emphasize verbal guidelines and teachings (and often, after repeated verbal discipline or other kinds of "punishments"-if they could be called so). When it's done that way, you don't end up thinking your father is a tyrant and that smacking people around is right if you can justify it.

*If spanking, smacking, or whatever else you want to call it is just a result of a moment of anger, you would definitely be sending the wrong message, and even taking the risk of hurting your kids (physically as well as pshychologically and emotionally talking). *

If the parents choose to spank their child, they must make sure the child understands why he/she is being disciplined, and what the moral learning should be. If not, the parents are not only wasting time, but -most importantly-, 'mistreating' the kid (if the word fits).

I am totally against all kinds of abuse, and I truly believe violence (or simply abuse of power) is one of the reasons why this world is going so wrong. 

That being said, I dare say spanking your children or not is a very personal decision; if you do decide to use that 'behavioral modifier' (in the balanced way of course) it should not be considered abusive or harmful, and if you decide not to, it should not be considered permissive. 

After all, those are YOUR kids, YOU are responsible for raising them, and if you are not hurting them, inflicting any damage to anybody, breaking any law, or offending community's moral code, you have the right to consider and weigh up whatever approach you choose, and make your own balanced and thoughtful decisions.

Pfhew! That ended up kind of long, didn't it?


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> Not always, but there are other, demonstrated, valid, effective techniques for modifying behavior that are not physical.


 


fenixpollo said:


> we should continue to use corporal punishment with children if we want to have a society like the ones that existed before the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, psychology, women's lib and the flush toilet.


 
Certainly, fenixpollo, where we in the West are concerned. But don't you think this is an attitude (or maybe 'conviction' is a better word) very typical of the first world democracies? 

What about nations where historical & cultural connexions to the Europe/North America "block" are more tenuous? (Or if not to Europe/North America directly, then in any case, to the higher standard of living of the type we're used to?) Does a technique that is demonstrably valid and effective mean that it's right for everyone, in the manner of "one size fits all"? Is there a possibility that we're becoming cosseted and self-indulgent in our convictions, what with our post-Enlightenment psychology and flush toilets?


----------



## GEmatt

. said:


> I am utterly convinced that if I use physical force to enforce discipline I am conveying the absolute message that might is right and who is stronger will do what they want while the smaller and weaker will be abused at will.





fenixpollo said:


> Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is an acceptable solution to any problem; and that it's OK to hurt our loved ones if "it's for their own good." People who abuse their families aren't _born_, they're made.


 
Hi again,

I'm sure you both are or will be good parents, and I have every respect for your values and methods. I feel it's important for the thread, however, to point out that this seems to be veering toward logical fallacy (anybody please correct me if I'm wrong in this).

Abstaining from any kind of physical discipline by no means necessarily prevents children from going on to become abusive adults.

Can this be reconciled with your respective approaches? If a decrease in the incidence of abusive adults &/or domestic violence in any one segment of a population (over the course of a couple of generations, for argument's sake) is not used as or seen to be a lithmus test for your pedagogical convictions, then how do you gauge their efficacy? The sobering corollary is that abstaining from physical discipline of any sort can be just as easily taken as a selfish desire to avoid confrontations or feelings of guilt, as any concern for the child, _per se_.

I _am _of course playing devil's advocate, so please don't be offended or take anything personally. Once more, I don't believe that violence is a solution, or to be condoned, and personally I think that these child-rearing convictions, like most values, I guess, owe more to the viscera than they do to logic.


----------



## fenixpollo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> I remember my parents spanking me as I was growing up; nevertheless, I believe my parents raised me the best they could. I didn't get any psychological traumas, nor resentments, nor broken bones in all those years.


Sweetie, I hear you saying that you think that those of us who are against spanking think that your parents were bad people -- and that's not accurate. It's not that spanking is "bad" -- rather that there are _better_ ways to discipline. 





Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> So please, don't come to me saying that an eventual smack on the bottom is the same than being expoiled and humilliated by a boss, or beaten by an abusive spouse!


 Of course not. However, if you look at adults who abuse their children or their spouses, or who use intimidation in their work relationships, the large numbers of them come from homes in which the parents used physical violence and its mental counterpart, intimidation, as "disciplinary tools". 


GEmatt said:


> Does a technique that is demonstrably valid and effective mean that it's right for everyone, in the manner of "one size fits all"? Is there a possibility that we're becoming cosseted and self-indulgent in our convictions, what with our post-Enlightenment psychology and flush toilets?


So, you're suggesting that I'm on my high horse of Western idealism, preaching to the unwashed third world. Fair enough -- that's what my president does, so your assumption is natural.  I haven't mentioned what disciplinary tactics "should" be used instead of corporal punishment, precisely because every culture, indeed every family, has different needs and expectations; and therefore my style of discipline is not the best one for everybody. All I'm saying is that violence begets violence: if we teach our children that violence is appropriate, then we will have a violent society. 


GEmatt said:


> Abstaining from any kind of physical discipline by no means necessarily prevents children who (through misadventure or otherwise) display a greater inclination towards abusive behaviour from going on to become abusive adults.
> 
> Can this be reconciled with your respective approaches? If a decrease in the incidence of abusive adults &/or domestic violence in any one segment of a population (over the course of a couple of generations, for argument's sake) is not used as or seen to be a lithmus test for your pedagogical convictions, then how do you gauge their efficacy?


Children who are spanked (including me) do not all grow up to be wife-beaters; and not all abusers came from homes where there was lots of violence. There are _so many_ factors that influence people's decision to become abusive (here's one study, for example), and we can't blame corporal punishment as the sole culprit. However, that is not an argument in favor of continuing corporal punishment.


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> So, you're suggesting that I'm on my high horse of Western idealism, preaching to the unwashed third world. Fair enough -- that's what my president does, so your assumption is natural.


No no! I honestly wasn't suggesting that! I was trying to treat it from a more general, "western-centric" viewpoint. And I don't think that everyone who doesn't live in North America or Western Europe is automatically dirty poor and starving. And neither do you.

Thanks for the link, looks interesting.. that's my weekend reading sorted out!


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> Children who are spanked (including me) do not all grow up to be......




The problem is in finding a control sample with which to compare these people.
How are we to judge whether Sean Citizen, who was spanked and does abuse his wife and family, is more or less 'representative' of the average male?
I have a brother who remembers very little parental use of smacking as a form of control - yet my sister and I have a very different recollection. Who's to say whether what he recalls was 'occasional' or what we recall was 'routine' or whether it was 'mild' or 'severe'?

We have no way of devising a standard by which people could grade the violence their parents meted out to them, other than 'any' and 'none' - and even then we may not remember correctly.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

fenixpollo said:


> It's not that spanking is "bad" -- rather that there are _better_ ways to discipline.
> 
> *I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  I believe differently ("I believe", alright?  I'm allowing myself to be subjective in this post, for once).  As I said, it is up to each parent to decide what his/her approach will be.  *
> 
> *However, based upon my own experience and observation, I have learned discipline is a matter of balance, and whatever you try on the matter must be kept that way: balanced.  *
> 
> *In my limited and exclusively personal point of view, that includes a couple of spanks once in a while, whenever truly necessary, and just as a way to inforce another point--the main one.  But, if others want to completely prescind from that way of discipline (and it works for them), that's perfectly valid, and I sincerely respect it.*
> 
> However, if you look at adults who abuse their children or their spouses, or who use intimidation in their work relationships, the large numbers of them come from homes in which the parents used *physical violence and its mental counterpart, intimidation,* as "disciplinary tools".
> 
> *Nothing as far as what I'm talking about.  I couldn't imagine myself slapping at kids on the face, nor I recall my parents doing so.  Violence is violence, intimidation is intimidation, and real trouble comes when wicked (or simply alterated) minds mix those concepts with physical discipline.*
> 
> Every culture, indeed every family, has different needs and expectations; and therefore my style of discipline is not the best one for everybody. All I'm saying is that *violence begets violence*: if we teach our children that violence is appropriate, then we will have a violent society.
> 
> *I totally agree!  However, I do eventually spank my 3 1/2 year old baby without being terribly ashamed of it, as badgrammar so well said.  Why? Because there is a huge difference between physical discipline and violence, if you choose to do things right.*
> 
> *E.g. I would never scream to my baby, or insult him, or humiliate him, or intimidate him, or hit/slap him, no matter what he does, or how many times I had told him not to, or how wrong could the resulting pattern get to be in the future, or how 'dangerous' his misconceptions are getting, or how angry I could be...  there are no excuses for VIOLENCE in any mark or circumstances.  That is totally out of discussion, so there is no need to blend or mingle such different things in here.*
> 
> Children who are spanked (including me) do not all grow up to be wife-beaters; and not all abusers came from homes where there was lots of violence. There are _so many_ factors that influence people's decision to become abusive (here's one study, for example), and we can't blame corporal punishment as the sole culprit. However, that is not an argument in favor of continuing corporal punishment.
> 
> *Goshhh!  "Corporal punishment"?  I'm sure it is a perfectly valid expression, but it sounds so medieval to me...  I don't know, but hearing that phrase makes me think of 5 year old kids on bended knees over hot stones, or being whipped until blood spouts out...*


----------



## fenixpollo

Sweetie said:
			
		

> Nothing as far as what I'm talking about. I couldn't imagine myself slapping at kids on the face, nor I recall my parents doing so. Violence is violence, intimidation is intimidation, and real trouble comes when wicked (or simply alterated) minds mix those concepts with physical discipline.


 But where is the line between a violent smack and a... what? "Harmless" smack?  The problem is that the line is totally subjective. What to Sean Citizen might be a simple spank, Tony might consider abusive. Some parents hit their children's buttocks so hard as to leave welts, yet justify their violence by saying "but it's not like I hit him with my belt! I'm not violent!" 


			
				Sweetie said:
			
		

> Because there is a _huge_ difference between physical discipline and violence, if you choose to do things right.


 Violence is violence, even if the motives for it are pure.  


			
				Sweetie said:
			
		

> Goshhh! "Corporal punishment"? I'm sure it is a perfectly valid expression, but it sounds so medieval to me...


 My point exactly.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

fenixpollo said:


> But where is the line between a violent smack and a... what? "Harmless" smack? The problem is that the line is totally subjective. What to Sean Citizen might be a simple spank, Tony might consider abusive. Some parents hit their children's buttocks so hard as to leave welts, yet justify their violence by saying "but it's not like I hit him with my belt! I'm not violent!"
> 
> Violence is violence, even if the motives for it are pure.


 
Well, okay, I see your point.  It is possible that every parent who gets to read this would think something like: "Well, at least _*I*_ am not violent to my kids", although within some of those cases, their kids' buttocks could look like a tic-tac-toe board, for all that smacking...

However, is that the basis to determine wether you spank your kids or not?  Isn't that a bit hypocritical?  Or, at least, way too 'moralist', or 'purist'?  Or, in another turn, wouldn't that be similar to saying: "Alright, lots of people have died in car crashes, so I really think I shouldn't drive"?

I'm really sorry, but I have to disagree with that....


----------



## ElaineG

A couple of points:

1) The cultural point is well taken.  My best friend teaches elementary school in Bed Stuy here in Brooklyn.  The school is 90% people of color (African-Americans, Caribbean-Americans, and first-generation African immigrants).  When she calls African-American or Caribbean-American parents in talk about a discipline infraction by a student, she regularly hears parents talk about the child getting "the belt" and similar modes of discipline.  

In my cultural milieu, if someone talked about taking a belt to their child, we'd think they were psycho and call the police and Child Protective Services.  But is the whole culture in which my friend teaches wrong?  Do you think my friend -- the childless middle-class white girl -- has a right to tell those parents how they should or shouldn't be disciplining their children?  We've discussed it a lot, and I really think that what is psychologically scarring is very socially and culturally determined.  If there is no lack of love, and no stigma to getting disciplined physically, is it actually damaging?  Isn't there a difference between _violence_ in the home and _physical discipline_?

2) One of the tragedies of modern upper middle-class American parenting seems to be the problem of over-reasoning.  This has been going on for a while and I was a victim of it.  It's when parents don't respond to bad behavior with firm discipline, but rather want to make a child "see reason."  I think a lot of the time, children just need limits.   Too much talking burdens them and causes exhaustion, fussiness, and more bad behavior. 

Now, there are other ways to set limits without physical discipline.  But while I'll never take a belt to my child -- I would far rather give my putative toddler a gentle, but startling, smack on the rear than to engage in a long "reasoned", but overly stressful for any normal small child, discussion of "why you shouldn't touch the hot stove and it makes mommy sad when you run in the street and why did you strangle your brother are you jealous of him blah blah blah blah blah blah."


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

ElaineG said:


> (...) Is the whole culture in which my friend teaches wrong? Do you think my friend -- the childless middle-class white girl -- has a right to tell those parents how they should or shouldn't be disciplining their children?
> 
> If there is no lack of love, and no stigma to getting disciplined physically, is it actually damaging? Isn't there a difference between _violence_ in the home and _physical discipline_?
> 
> I think a lot of the time, children just need limits. Too much talking burdens them and causes exhaustion, fussiness, and more bad behavior.
> 
> (..) I would far rather give my putative toddler a gentle, but startling, smack on the rear than to engage in a long "reasoned", but overly stressful for any normal small child, discussion of "why you shouldn't touch the hot stove and it makes mommy sad when you run in the street and why did you strangle your brother are you jealous of him blah blah blah blah blah blah."


 

I couldn't agree more, ElaineG. Everything you have said is very similar to the way I see things.

In another order, I would like to take up GEmatt's first statement again. The first line of this thread quotes from the Bible, right? Regardless of whatever we think about religion or the Bible itself, there is a remark I insist upon making. 

Everything, when taken out of context, could (logically) be misunderstood, and we (as members of a multilingual forum) are quite aware of that fact. I believe that suits the case maxiogee referred to. Geez! If that were the only bible account I had ever heard, you BET I wouldn't respect those who wrote it either!

That is also fitting on the "rod" matter. The Bible itself also reminds the parents "not to keep on exasperating the child" with discipline (sorry, it sounds better in Spanish), I believe it is registered in the letter to the Ephessians. That 'reminder' does not only refers to physical displays of discipline, but to the very broad spectrum of it. So, even in the same book where firm discipline is encouraged, we found that _*balance*_ is an important issue on the matter.

So please, let's not generalize things nor close our minds to the subject we are discussing. Those of us who take a stand for "the rod", are also keeping in mind that the idea is never hurting, ill-treating our children, and not even get any close to those extremes...


----------



## .   1

GEmatt said:


> Abstaining from any kind of physical discipline by no means necessarily prevents children from going on to become abusive adults.
> I _am _of course playing devil's advocate,


I have difficulty responding to the devil's advocate as I am not sure if I am responding to the advocate or the devil.
Indulging in any kind of physical violence by no means necessarily prevents children from going on to become abusive adults.

What kids seek is time and attention from their parents.
When my child is confused and frightened and ashamed of herself for making a mistake is it more profitable for me to hit her to reinforce these emotions and make us both feel horrible or should we sit down and have a discussion about the cause of the problem?

.,,


----------



## .   1

GEmatt said:


> I don't condone it and would not smack my own children, but I'm interested in .,,'s example. I can reason with my 7 year-old, of course. But can you make a 3 year-old "see reason"?


In a subtly simplistic manner.  The most effective manner is to show a sad face.  This works from a very young age.  Kids are eager to make mum and dad smile and when kids see frowns or sadness they try to do something to change the frown.  Display displeasure and tell the child that the behaviour makes daddy sad.  Young children are amazingly facile and can modify their behaviour much more easily than adults.

.,,


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

. said:


> When my child is confused and frightened and ashamed of herself for making a mistake is it more profitable for me to *hit her to reinforce these emotions and make us both feel horrible *or should we sit down and have a discussion about the cause of the problem?
> 
> .,,


 
Why is it so hard for us human beings to just LISTEN to others and be open-minded?

I don't mean to offend or make anybody angry (please, let me know if I anyhow do so)... It's just that it kind of makes me upset that we tend to judge others so quickly.

I believe I speak for ElaineG and badgrammar when I say that is not the way we administer discipline (of course, feel free to correct me if I don't  ).

Again, again and again, I would insist upon my favourite word on these matters: *BALANCE!* 

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

. said:


> In a subtly simplistic manner. The most effective manner is to show a sad face. This works from a very young age. Kids are eager to make mum and dad smile and when kids see frowns or sadness they try to do something to change the frown. Display displeasure and tell the child that the behaviour makes daddy sad. Young children are amazingly facile and can modify their behaviour much more easily than adults.
> 
> .,,


 


ElaineG said:


> Now, there are other ways to set limits without physical discipline. But while I'll never take a belt to my child -- I would far rather give my putative toddler a gentle, but startling, smack on the rear than to engage in a long "reasoned", but overly stressful for any normal small child, discussion of *"why you shouldn't touch the hot stove and it makes mommy sad when you run in the street and why did you strangle your brother are you jealous of him blah blah blah blah blah blah*."


 

Does this work as an answer to you, .,,?

Some circumstances demand much more than a frown, don't you think?


----------



## badgrammar

I do understand Venezuala's point of view and her cultural viewpoint.  A swat on the hiney may, in some cases, be far more effective and instructive than, say,  trying to reason with a two year old having a tantrum.  Or when you catch your 4 year old, for the umpteenth time, attacking her older brother with fists and feet flying.  You've already said 200 times that day "Don't hit your brother, he has feelings too blah blah blah...".  There are moments where reasoning does not work, but the shock of swat or grabbing the child by the arms might do the trick nicely.  And more than likely, parents like Venezuala's used both reasoning and physical discipline.  It's not an either-or thing.

I totally agree with ELaine that we shouldn't take the reasoning thing to an extreme.  A 3 year old does not and cannot reason like an adult.  As awful as it is to hear a mother threatening to slap her child for misbehaving, it is nearly (just?) as bad to see a mother endlessly and futily reason with a misbehaving child...  Instead of disciplining (which isn't necessarily physical.  

In France they are talking about the phenomenon of "Le roi Enfant" (The Child King), and how we have become so indulgent with our youngsters, wanting to do good, following the permissiveness of what the child psychologists have been saying since Dr. Spock, that we have formed little beings who are totally out of touch with the demands of the real world:  Shape up or ship out. 

A favorite anecdote:  A childhood friend of mine decided not to say "No" to his child, because he did not want her to grow up in a negative environment.  Instead he and his wife would say "That is not available to Betty" every time they would otherwise have said "No", and then they'd explain the issues and give the reasons.  I still giggle when I think of that.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

badgrammar said:


> A swat on the hiney may, in some cases, be far more effective and instructive than, say, trying to reason with a two year old having a tantrum. Or when you catch your 4 year old, for the umpteenth time, attacking her older brother with fists and feet flying. You've already said 200 times that day "Don't hit your brother, he has feelings too blah blah blah...".
> 
> There are moments where reasoning does not work, but the shock of swat or grabbing the child by the arms might do the trick nicely. And more than likely, parents like Venezuala's used both reasoning and physical discipline. It's not an either-or thing.
> 
> In France they are talking about the phenomenon of "Le roi Enfant" (The Child King) (...)


 
Thanks a lot, it is great to know the message is actually coming across... 

You are absolutely right: It is not an either-or thing.

And, about that phenomenon being discussed in France, it has also been (extensively) discussed in *Venezuela* (watch your spelling, bg  ).  I'll bring you guys a very rough summary of the most interesting conclusions they have found (just a few lines, don't freak out  ), so that perhaps we could discuss them up a bit.

I don't quite agree with everything they say (ah, we always tend to the extremes...), but it would surely be an interesting read...


----------



## badgrammar

I am shocked, simply shocked, by my spelling error ...  I thought you were being picky, but then I saw I wrote it twice as Venezuala!  I really do know better! Promise!



Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Thanks a lot, it is great to know the message is actually coming across...
> 
> You are absolutely right: It is not an either-or thing.
> 
> And, about that phenomenon being discussed in France, it has also been (extensively) discussed in *Venezuela* (watch your spelling, bg  ).  I'll bring you guys a very rough summary of the most interesting conclusions they have found (just a few lines, don't freak out  ), so that perhaps we could discuss them up a bit.
> 
> I don't quite agree with everything they say (ah, we always tend to the extremes...), but it would surely be an interesting read...


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

badgrammar said:


> I am shocked, simply shocked, by my spelling error ... I thought you were being picky, but then I saw I wrote it twice as Venezuala! I really do know better! Promise!


 
Don't worry, that has surely happened to us all...


----------



## GEmatt

. said:


> Indulging in any kind of physical violence by no means necessarily prevents children from going on to become abusive adults.


I know you are only paraphrasing, .,, , but the point basically that "violence" should not be used as a blanket term for the full range of physical "behaviour modification techniques", from a tap on the wrist/buttocks to a wallop with a belt or worse, has been well-made by Sweetie and ElaineG. Dogged insistence on referring to "physical _violence_" for any number from 1 to 10 on the scale of something that is both personally subjective and culture-specific, as fenixpollo and ElaineG have noted, needlessly draws (what is, IMHO) unnecessary attention to the small stuff, and potentially distracts from the more serious infractions.


. said:


> I have difficulty responding to the devil's advocate as I am not sure if I am responding to the advocate or the devil.


I believe I've made my own position clear on several occasions throughout this thread. My line about "playing the devil's advocate" was part of an explanation of my position, and a request that others here not be offended or take whatever I may say personally; but you've chosen to selectively omit that part. 


ElaineG said:


> One of the tragedies of modern upper middle-class American parenting seems to be the problem of over-reasoning.


Thanks for your thoughts, ElaineG! Believe me, though... this one can be safely extended to western Europe, too.. and probably to other developed nations. 


ElaineG said:


> Do you think my friend -- the childless middle-class white girl -- has a right to tell those parents how they should or shouldn't be disciplining their children?


I love it . This is something like meta-ethics, if I'm not too mistaken. But to introduce a concrete vein into the thread again, you mention you were a victim of "over-reasoning". I'd be interested in anything you'd be willing to share on this, as my experience is the opposite of yours, and I'm wondering what you are comparing against, to make you refer to yourself as a victim (a term I wouldn't use for myself, despite having had my features sporadically rearranged over the years). For example, do you think you might have turned out somehow better, with the occasional spank?

And, just seizing on the notion of "over-reasoning", this can be linked back to my question about whether we are obsessed by our children. "Over-" anything is usually negative. Where does this come from? Is it guilt-related, because we think our lifestyles are accelerating, at the expense of quality, family life, and its values? Or something more deep-seated? This need to handle children with kid-gloves seems relatively new, to me.


----------



## .   1

GEmatt said:


> I know you are only paraphrasing, .,, , but the point basically that "violence" should not be used as a blanket term for the full range of physical "behaviour modification techniques", from a tap on the wrist/buttocks to a wallop with a belt or worse, has been well-made by Sweetie and ElaineG. Dogged insistence on referring to "physical _violence_" for any number from 1 to 10 on the scale of something that is both personally subjective and culture-specific, as fenixpollo and ElaineG have noted, needlessly draws (what is, IMHO) unnecessary attention to the small stuff, and potentially distracts from the more serious infractions.


I believe that violence should be used as a description of 1 to 10 physical assault and threats, villification, intimidation, cursing and yelling.

I was not paraphrasing. I was refuting your assertion and implication about the futility of abstaining from violence as a method of child discipline.



GEmatt said:


> I believe I've made my own position clear on several occasions throughout this thread. My line about "playing the devil's advocate" was part of an explanation of my position, and a request that others here not be offended or take whatever I may say personally; but you've chosen to selectively omit that part.


I was not offended at that point nor had I taken personally anything that you had said. You introduced the concept of being the devil's advocate and I responded in kind.
I am perplexed that you decide to frown at me about this matter. 

I hope that your frown at me has improved your day because it most certainly has done nothing to enhance my day. 

Good day.

.,,


----------



## Redisca

Is the relative strength and painfulness of spanking/tapping/beating the only issue here?  What about the _psychological_ effects of corporal punishment?  Even if not extremely painful or physically harmful in the long run, the degrading nature of corporal punishment may have lasting consequences on the child's mind.


----------



## .   1

G'day Redisca,
That is the point entirely.
I have bumped into my daughter very hard when playing and imparted more force than I ever would think of with punishment and she confirmed through her tears that it was nothing and she did not feel bad just sore.
The psychological impact of telling a child that they will be physically hurt is potentially devistating and I would not condone it.
People who smack their kids in Australia receive at best a severe frowning and at worst an intervention by the police.

.,,


----------



## curly

Violence is just a way of saying i am in control, sometimes it's used to make the child see that, sometimes to make the parent feel that, i think that a spanking is useful for when other demonstrations, groundings, denial of sweets  etc don't work, 

I think violence is best when there is immediate need for a lesson to be learned, don't touch the cooker, when the child is about to touch the cooker.. and many other examples, but long term "life-lessons" are better talk about,

My dad spanked my and i don't have any violent problems * twitch*


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

curly said:


> Violence is just a way of saying i am in control, sometimes it's used to make the child see that, sometimes to make the parent feel that, i think that a spanking is useful for when other demonstrations, groundings, denial of sweets etc don't work,
> 
> I think _*violence*_ is best when there is immediate need for a lesson to be learned, don't touch the cooker, when the child is about to touch the cooker.. and many other examples, but long term "life-lessons" are better talk about,
> 
> My dad spanked my and i don't have any violent problems * twitch*


 

Well, I wouldn't use the word "violence" here, not because it is semantically (or grammatically --or politically) incorrect, or something, but because (at least in my head), I can't take that violence and a little swat on the bottom are the same thing!

Take it as a cultural difference if you may, but I just can't accept that as true in my context.

Setting that aside, I do agree with the rest of your message, curly...


----------



## fenixpollo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Well, I wouldn't use the word "violence" here, not because it is semantically (or grammatically --or politically) incorrect, or something, but because (at least in my head), I can't take that violence and a little swat on the bottom are the same thing!...


 Perhaps that's the point that several of us are trying to make, sweetie. WR defines violence as "an act of aggression".  That includes a little swat on the bottom. That's why I'm (generally speaking) not in favor of corporal punishment, and why it's so hard to say that one kind of spank is OK while another is not.  All spanks that are used for disciplinary purposes are aggressive.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> I think violence is best when there is immediate need for a lesson to be learned, don't touch the cooker, when the child is about to touch the cooker.. and many other examples, but long term "life-lessons" are better talk about,



Verbal violence is more appropriate in the 'touching the cooker' situation than real violence, don't you think?
Parent puts on serious and threatening 'voice of doom' and shouts "Don't you dare touch that!!!" - then, when the child has recovered from the shock, and when there is no danger that they will touch the cooker one can bring their hand close enough to feel the heat and understand why they mustn't touch. Or, one can put a piece of paper on the cooker and let them see it singe to a brownness before their eyes.
If the child could reason with you, what would you answer if they asked "Why did you smack me?"


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

fenixpollo said:


> All spanks that are used for disciplinary purposes are aggressive.


 
That's soo patronizing...  or at least, we are speaking in _*really*_ general terms.

You know, in most of my posts over cultural matters, I include phrases like "in my opinion", "my (limited) point of view is", "I think", "what I have learned...", and so on, because when we talk about these topics, _most _points of view are somewhat acceptable in _every_ context, and *ALL* of them are perfectly valid in at least *one* context--in the one of the member who is expressing it.

For example, when I noticed that word, "aggression", a very vivid image came to my mind: a lion, jumping over the neck of a small gazelle.  I'm sorry, but I cannot take that a loving parent actually assaults his/her children in order to teach them something!  Maybe some people do, in some circumstances, but...  I just can't take that image of violence off my head.

So no, I don't believe all spanks are aggressive.  However, as I have already said 'ad nauseaum', that is just my own and personal point of view.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

maxiogee said:


> Verbal violence is more appropriate in the 'touching the cooker' situation than real violence, don't you think?
> Parent puts on serious and threatening 'voice of doom' and shouts "Don't you dare touch that!!!" - then, when the child has recovered from the shock, and when there is no danger that they will touch the cooker one can bring their hand close enough to feel the heat and understand why they mustn't touch. Or, one can put a piece of paper on the cooker and let them see it singe to a brownness before their eyes.
> If the child could reason with you, what would you answer if they asked "Why did you smack me?"


 
You are a parent, too, aren't you maxiogee?

Well, then you know for sure that, sometimes, you tell and tell and tell the same thing to your child, and... what does the little angel decide to do the one second you're not looking at him?  Yes, exactly what you told him not to do.

The problem starts when you have a three-year-old troublemaker, since sometimes reason does not work at all (however, I believe one should try it over again before going to the next step.  Giving up is not for parents!  )  In those cases, you might have explained things in a soft voice, reasoned with the child, given visual aids, set examples, and so on and so forth.  But, "kids will be kids"!    Some of us still feel attracted by an open flare, no matter how many pieces of paper we have seen turned to ashes (I was such one...   )  In those cases, wouldn't a small swat avoid a bigger burn?

That is, more or less, my point.


----------



## maxiogee

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> You are a parent, too, aren't you maxiogee?


Yes, and I was also a child! 



> Well, then you know for sure that, sometimes, you tell and tell and tell the same thing to your child, and... what does the little angel decide to do the one second you're not looking at him?  Yes, exactly what you told him not to do.


And do you seriously believe that such a child will be taught by slaps what it will not learn by words?
Such a child would have an unhealthy relationship with its parent(s).



> The problem starts when you have a three-year-old troublemaker, since sometimes reason does not work at all (however, I believe one should try it over again before going to the next step.  Giving up is not for parents!  )  In those cases, you might have explained things in a soft voice, reasoned with the child, given visual aids, set examples, and so on and so forth.  But, "kids will be kids"!    Some of us still feel attracted by an open flare, no matter how many pieces of paper we have seen turned to ashes (I was such one...   )



When we have a child such as that all we can do is hope that the lessons they need to teach themselves are not learned at too great a cost.
As parents one of the first things we must realise is that we cannot learn their lessons for them, nor do we do them any favours if we stop them learning some of the lessons which they must learn.




> In those cases, wouldn't a small swat avoid a bigger burn?
> 
> That is, more or less, my point.


Would such a child learn anything from "a small swat"?
As a child who was routinely beaten I can attest that there needed to be an progressive escalation in the learning-potential of the smackings!


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

maxiogee said:


> And do you seriously believe that such a child will be taught by slaps what it will not learn by words?
> Such a child would have an unhealthy relationship with its parent(s).


 
*I strongly disagree with that.  Sometimes, a little shock is needed.  So you do it through "verbal violence"? If it works for you, fine.  I respect it.  I hate raising my voice since it shows anger to the child and (in my view), it's not quite healthy as well.  Also, I truly dislike threats such as "pedro moreno" (a silly way parents adress to the belt here) or "keep on and you're gonna get it".  In this matter, and in almost everything related to human relationships, BALANCE is my banner and anthem, dear...*

*If I'm going to spank my kid, I try my best for him to understand I'm not doing it because I am agry or he is unworthy (now, that would be aggression!).  I'd never spank him in an isolated way, reasoning is mandatory.*



> As parents one of the first things we must realise is that we cannot learn their lessons for them, nor do we do them any favours if we stop them learning some of the lessons which they must learn.


 
*Absolutelly.  You can do so about, let's say, drinking.  Give your kid the tools to make up his/her mind on the matter, and he will be a fine-raised man/woman in the future.  But, tell me, would you just sit and smile if your teenager comes home at 4:00 am, smelling like beer, with a slurred speech and puking all over your carpets?  Of course not!  So, there are moments in which your child needs some leading.  That's what parents do!  It's pretty much the same when they're really young (say, 2, 3, 4 years old).  Would "grounding" work on them?  Would taking away their CDs, Playstations or cellphones work?  No...*



> Would such a child learn anything from "a small swat"?


 
*Yes!*



> As a child who was routinely beaten...


 
*Again, where has the word "balance" gone?  Routinely beaten?  Gosh, that sounds a bit like abuse, you know?*

*And I don't really get the other sentence:* "there needed to be an progressive escalation in the learning-potential of the smackings!".  *Could you please rephrase it for a non-native speaker, please?  Thanks in advance....*


----------



## fenixpollo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> That's soo patronizing... or at least, we are speaking in _*really*_ general terms.
> 
> For example, when I noticed that word, "aggression", a very vivid image came to my mind: a lion, jumping over the neck of a small gazelle. I'm sorry, but I cannot take that a loving parent actually assaults his/her children in order to teach them something! Maybe some people do, in some circumstances, but... I just can't take that image of violence off my head.
> 
> So no, I don't believe all spanks are aggressive. However, as I have already said 'ad nauseaum', that is just my own and personal point of view.


 I am speaking in really general terms, and I'm definitely not patronizing you Sweetie. I'm expressing my personal viewpoint: *any time a parent hits a child in order to discipline him, it's an aggressive act.* The purpose is to aggressively, quickly and definitively stop his incorrect behavior with physical force.

You may not like being compared to a lioness who rips the throat out of a gazelle, and I'm positive that you don't like being compared to parents who see little difference between spanking and burning children with cigarettes... but those are all just degrees of the same behavior.

I understand you to be saying that when that behavior is done with love and without malice; for a specific purpose; and with measure and restraint, it's not the same. It's not violence, it's just spanking.  Do I understand you correctly?

I agree that those three criteria are necessary any time a parent disciplines their child. However, you have to understand that the important thing is not how a parent hits a child -- the important thing is that a parent hits a child.


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> You may not like being compared to a lioness who rips the throat out of a gazelle, and I'm positive that you don't like being compared to parents who see little difference between spanking and burning children with cigarettes... but those are all just degrees of the same behavior.


 
fenixpollo,
I may have asked this already, so sorry in advance.. I understand the idea of putting all types of this behaviour into one basket. That's fair enough, in terms of the physical aspect (be it a poke or a punch). But do you not make any distinction with regard to intent? Maybe I misunderstand, but by 'intent', I think I come close to what Sweetie refers to as 'balance'.

Example from real life, Switzerland. A matronly woman gets onto the tram, with a small boy of around 5. They sit opposite eachother. She is apparently furious, breathing heavily, and making almost animal and threatening grunting sounds; the boy is terrified. One wonders what the kid could possibly have done. But she hasn't laid a finger on him (as far as we passengers know), so.. so far, so good, right? She then proceeds - lightning bursts, maybe at 30 second intervals - to kick his bare shins with the tip of her shoes. If you're not sitting next to them, you will only see her shoulders twitching slightly. The boy's in agony, the tears are streaming, but he's clearly too frightened to cry out loud. She lands maybe 6 or 7 solid kicks, before they get off the tram.
Everyone is in shock; pale and upset faces all round; people on their mobile phones telling friends what they've just seen.

A few weeks later, same tram. A little boy is running up and down the central aisle, screaming and laughing, tripping over peoples' belongings.. his mother finally manages to grab him, swats his rear. Nobody bats an eyelid.
The sad thing is that nobody intervened in the first case, but that's not my point. By putting all physical acts into one basket, regardless of intent, are you not simultaneously putting all "perpetrators" of such acts into one basket? Do you see any fundamental difference between Sweetie, and the Mother #1, above? This is especially interesting to me, as a kind of "spanky/anti-spanky" agnostic..


----------



## maxiogee

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> I strongly disagree with that.  Sometimes, a little shock is needed.  So you do it through "verbal violence"? If it works for you, fine.  I respect it.  I hate raising my voice since it shows anger to the child and (in my view), it's not quite healthy as well.


There is a difference between shouting at a child and a display of (even 'verbal') anger - I was referring to the violence of a sudden shout, designed to shock and stop the child in its tracks towards whatever danger it was headed for.



> Also, I truly dislike threats such as "pedro moreno" (a silly way parents adress to the belt here) or "keep on and you're gonna get it".  In this matter, and in almost everything related to human relationships, BALANCE is my banner and anthem, dear...


Threats of violence are useless unless they are, at least occasionally, carried out. Children soon learn that an un-nbacked threat is less than useless. I remember well the teacher who was always threatening punishments which never materialised. Even the good kids misbehaved in his class.




> But, tell me, would you just sit and smile if your teenager comes home at 4:00 am, smelling like beer, with a slurred speech and puking all over your carpets?  Of course not!


Of course I would - what would you do then?
I'd do nothing because that is not the time for doing anything - violence, threats of it, nor reasoned discussion of the finer points of moderate drinking.
In fact, if your teenager comes home at 4:00 in that condition you've already failed somewhere along the line and you probably need to have more of a talk with yourself than with your child!





> Again, where has the word "balance" gone?  Routinely beaten?  Gosh, that sounds a bit like abuse, you know?


Yes, it does, doesn't it - you say that as if you think it an exaggeration. I'm sorry that you feel that.
But of course it wasn't called 'abuse' fifty years ago in Ireland. it was called being a strict parent. Fifty years ago here there was no-one speaking about abuse - be it physical or sexual, parental or spousal. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen - as we have been finding out over recent years.




> And I don't really get the other sentence:* "there needed to be an progressive escalation in the learning-potential of the smackings!".  *Could you please rephrase it for a non-native speaker, please?  Thanks in advance....


As one gets used to being smacked it becomes like a drug. More and more needs to be administered before the parent sees the desired effect. One's tolerance for the pain and humiliation increases.


----------



## emma42

_
Quote
As one gets used to being smacked it becomes like a drug. More and more needs to be administered before the parent sees the desired effect. One's tolerance for the pain and humiliation increases.[/quote]_ 


That's right.  Quite apart from the discussion about whether it's right or wrong to administer violence, the point is, _it doesn't work._


----------



## fenixpollo

GEmatt said:


> I understand the idea of putting all types of this behaviour into one basket. That's fair enough, in terms of the physical aspect (be it a poke or a punch). But do you not make any distinction with regard to intent? Maybe I misunderstand, but by 'intent', I think I come close to what Sweetie refers to as 'balance'.


 The "intent" of a parent who lightly spanks his child is to correct the child's behavior by punishing the child, in the hopes that the negative reinforcement will lead the child to stop behaving that way in the future.  The "intent" of a parent who kicks her child in the shins until he bruises and cries is to correct the child's behavior by punishing the child, in the hopes that the negative reinforcement will lead the child to stop behaving that way in the future.

Perhaps the woman in your story had other motives for kicking her child. Perhaps you will suggest to me that people who resort to abusive behavior (behavior that is "unacceptable" enough for people to be shocked) also act out of vengefulness, jealousy, resentment, or other negative emotions. You may be right, but it would be a moot point. The ostensible intent of physical punishment is behavioral correction, regardless of the other emotions with which the punishment is delivered.  Both parents will say that they love their children.  Both parents will say that they are acting for the child's own good. Both parents may even say to the child the preposterous statement that "this hurts me more than it hurts you." 

The intent of the abuser is the same as the intent of the light spanker, and their forms of punishment are simply variations on a theme.





> By putting all physical acts into one basket, regardless of intent, are you not simultaneously putting all "perpetrators" of such acts into one basket? Do you see any fundamental difference between Sweetie, and the Mother #1, above? This is especially interesting to me, as a kind of "spanky/anti-spanky" agnostic..


 Yes to the first, and no to the second.

When you say you're agnostic, does that mean that you're waiting for proof that spanking hurts?


----------



## curly

IT's my opinion that..

A quick slap is useful for a quick lesson, for things that happen quickly, If you slap a child ( not beat the snot out of them on a daily basis) that child learns not to do it, i.e. touching the cooker, or cursing, things that aren't done out of a desire to misbehave, but simply lack of thought.

Long discussions are best left for things like drinking, drugs, ... the sort of thing that people make choices about, and think about ( for at least a second or two)

Long beatings have no effect, in my opinion, but a quick and shocking slap, has always made me think, before yelling out c*nt at people who steal my sweets...


----------



## fenixpollo

I never yell out "c*nt" in that situation, and nobody every corrected me with a shocking slap when I did it. Other methods, including words, are equally effective in correcting behavior. 





			
				GEMatt said:
			
		

> Dogged insistence on referring to "physical _violence_" for any number from 1 to 10 on the scale of something that is both personally subjective and culture-specific, as fenixpollo and ElaineG have noted, needlessly draws (what is, IMHO) unnecessary attention to the small stuff, and potentially distracts from the more serious infractions.


Of course it's subjective. Sweetie says that her spanks are a 1 so they're OK, but someone from another country might say that Sweetie's spanks are really a 3. In other cultures, the belt might be considered a 1.  Since it's all just different degrees of the same kind of violence, I consider it more healthy to talk about all of it in the same breath, rather than trying to draw some arbitrary line between one kind of spank and another, using irrelevant (and equally subjective) factors such as "intent" or "balance".


----------



## GEmatt

Thanks for coming back so quickly!



> Yes to the first, and no to the second.


 
"No" to the second, eh? I have a feeling _someone_'s going to have something to say about that.



> When you say you're agnostic, does that mean that you're waiting for proof that spanking hurts?


 
(You couldn't resist, could you?) I don't need to wait, I've experienced it first "hand" (excuse the pun); it didn't damage me - it only sharpened my reflexes. "Anti-spank agnosticism" is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.*  



*Shamelessly paraphrased out of wikipedia.


----------



## curly

If nobody ever corrected you with a slap how did they correct you? Did they tell you it's a "bad" word, that it's wrong? Or did you realise that some people will react badly to insults some other way that didn't hurt physically or emotionally for at east a few seconds?

I think that there's no way of punishing your children without felling bad, because that's what a punishment is, it's a negative consquence to demonstrate that certain behaviour has bad, worse consequences.

I think you can find something bad about all "behaviour modification techniques", even doing the sad-face bit could be called emotional-blackmail.


----------



## fenixpollo

Matt said:
			
		

> "No" to the second, eh? I have a feeling _someone_'s going to have something to say about that


 _(sounds of chicken, scrambling to cover his tailfeathers before they are ripped out...)_

When I said "no" to your question about Sweetie's spanks being "fundamentally different" than Mother #1's kicks, I did not mean to say that Sweetie is a bad mother or an evil person, as Mom One appears to be. I simply meant that, as a parenting strategy, I don't differentiate between the two types of punishment mentioned.


----------



## curly

Ang as parenting tactics? do you agree that they are different in that respect?


----------



## GEmatt

> I did not mean to say that Sweetie is a bad mother or an evil person, as Mom One appears to be


 
I know, fenix.. just kidding. I'm sure Sweetie will be gentle with you 



> Since it's all just different degrees of the same kind of violence, I consider it more healthy to talk about all of it in the same breath


 
But I always considered generalization to be useful when talking about uniform problems, and potentially damaging when addressing issues that feature a lot of variety (can't think of any concrete examples, sorry..).

It's coming at the problem from opposite ends: Since I'm focusing on the "different degrees", I could happily get involved in stamping out the "Mother#1/upper end" of the scale _within a context_, a bit like the "control sample" that maxigee referred to at the beginning. Within one cultural context, disciplinary mores will tend toward the homogeneous, so then I have no problem generalizing; it's the appropriate response. Generalization from a point of view of glossing over the differences is imho inviting trouble. I'm rambling, sorry; and I may have taken you out of context, but appreciate your thoughts


----------



## maxiogee

GEmatt said:


> I know, fenix.. just kidding. I'm sure Sweetie will be gentle with you


I wouldn't be so sure — you're speaking of someone who believes that violence works wonders in some situations.


----------



## GEmatt

Wonders never cease!


----------



## badgrammar

I'm sorry, I haven't read all the posts, but I have a question for Fenixpolio - although I believe he will say it is irrelevant.  But here goees:  Are you a parent who has actively raised children (as opposed to having a biological child who, for whatever reasons, you did not yourself raise)?


----------



## fenixpollo

A good question, bg.  My son is 7. He minds his p's and q's. We do not spank. 

An irrelevant question might be, "if you don't spank, how do you discipline him?" My discipline approach may work for me, but not for other parents (see posts 8, 10, 11 and their replies).  There are lots of options besides hitting.


----------



## Fleurs263

I think it's important to remember that we are talking about children as the recipients of smackings, beatings or violence and they are i) new to the world ii) do not have the same knowledge or conditioning (whichever) and iii) life is relatively simple for them - in terms of what they want, like, dislike etc ..
I think the major problem, which can arise when a parent slaps a young (toddler) child, is that it can become too easy a way of controlling behaviour. Without going into the social or psychological problems which may be affecting the situation, I think if you can try to understand what is being experienced by the child at any given moment, you have a fair shot at resolving the situation without using any form of violence.

For example, the parent who refuses to remove something valuable and breakable (for example an ornament) from within the reach of a naturally inquisitive toddler is ultimately setting up that child.  I have seen parents adamantly refuse to remove an ornament and have shouted, screamed and eventually smacked a toddler for wanting to pick it up and play with it.  The ornament was shiny, an interesting shape and within reach and it was inevitable that the child would want to touch, feel the texture, see what the ornament could do.  Therefore from the child's point of view it was INTERSTING. The child could have no understanding of its either monetary or personal/emotional value.
The last point I would like to make is that children are 'us' only smaller and less experienced.  We all began life as children ... Personally if someone tried to smack my backside, as an adult, they'd better be able to run fast ... it's no less humiliating for a child, no less painful .. in fact logically one would have to assume it's worse .. they're new to the planet and therefore more vulnerable ... the idea that children recover quickly and forget is generally used to try to negate the full impact of what's done to us as children  ... in comparison to adults they have no rights and logically they should have more .. they're smaller and my understanding is that to use violence on someone smaller or weaker is nothing more than bullying.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Verbal violence is more appropriate in the 'touching the cooker' situation than real violence, don't you think?
> Parent puts on serious and threatening 'voice of doom' and shouts "Don't you dare touch that!!!" - then, when the child has recovered from the shock, and when there is no danger that they will touch the cooker one can bring their hand close enough to feel the heat and understand why they mustn't touch. Or, one can put a piece of paper on the cooker and let them see it singe to a brownness before their eyes.
> If the child could reason with you, what would you answer if they asked "Why did you smack me?"


From a logical viewpoint you are perfectly correct.

.,,


----------



## don maico

Remember one thing - VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE. If you hit children your are teaching then that hitting is ok particularly on small human beings.Correct body language, tone of voice and sense of authority are what is necessary not beating.


----------



## .   1

Is there anybody in this forum who is advocating corporal punishment for children actually a parent??

.,,


----------



## don maico

Must confess i am not a parent but I HATE chilldren being beaten . I was beaten myself and ended up loathing my so called father for it so for me this thread has a particular poignancy and when I see children being hit and yelled at I feel like taking the parents task. ITS JUST SO WRONG!


----------



## badgrammar

. said:


> Is there anybody in this forum who is advocating corporal punishment for children actually a parent??
> 
> .,,



Certainly not I, atleast I never recieved so much as a spank when I was a kid, but I do admit to having lost my temper and having been physically agressive (read previous posts if you have a question with my own kids, when nothing else worked...  On the other hand, my husband was often beaten, slapped as a child.  "Enlève tes lunettes!" ("take off your glasses") was a common refrain in his household.  His parents are good, loving parents...  Their parents were even harder on them.

If you come from that background, and you are a well-adjusted person, I can see where it is easy to say "I got disciplined physically, and it probably served me well" (I did not say "right").  It is difficult for you to not repeat (some of) the same  patterns.  But you don(t repeat them all, you have evolved.

But was my husband traumatized by that?  Was Venezuela sweetie?  I don't know, apparently not that much, if you listen to them.

We change from generation to generation...  I am not the Mom my mother was, nor is husband is the dad his father was.  But we all carry on what we learned when we were little, and then we add our own twist.  

Carry on, parents, love your children, do the best you can with the knowledge and strength you have today.  You know it isn't good to hit or be aggressive with your kids; but you also remember where you came from.  It influences who you are today.


----------



## justjukka

Children cannot always be reasoned with.  Sending them to their room and letting them scream their heads off will not always work.  Sometimes it is just necessary to pop them on the mouth for their smart cheek or swat them on the rear for running a muck.  Out-and-out beating a child, of course, is not acceptable.


----------



## emma42

But _hitting a child in the mouth_ for being cheeky is?


----------



## fenixpollo

Rozax, "popping a child on the mouth" IS beating a child.


----------



## emma42

Euphemisms such as "swat" and "pop" just serve to cloud the issue.  If a person thinks hitting a child is appropriate, s/he should be honest enough to say it.


----------



## Everness

Parents hit their children out of frustration. It has nothing to do with the child, just with the adults. It works for us in different ways: we relieve tension, it's a failed attempt to regain power, etc. It might work in the short term but not in the long term. Hitting actually teaches children to hit.


----------



## ElaineG

So does spanking a child teach a child to spank?  Smacking a hand that's reaching for a hot stove teach a child to smack hands?

I think it's a lot of psychobabble actually.

I worked in a day care center for two years, and as a nanny for another 3. (And, no, I didn't smack or spank in those capacities, but I didn't look down on parents who did). You don't have to teach children to hit, shove, push, pull hair, kick, whatever... Those are human instincts.


----------



## maxiogee

Rozax said:


> Children cannot always be reasoned with.


If you mean that there are times when they will not respond to reasoning, I would agree with you. Then it is best to wait for later to reason with them.
However, if you mean that they are un-reason-able then I would counter with the exact opposite —> children are more reason-able than adults, as any parent will tell you. A child can follow very strict reasoning and will (after you have satisfied their umpteenth "Why?") accept what they see as 'reason'. Try it some time with a child - not in a controversial situation, but in an everyday situation of answering one of their 'deep thought' questions. It's fascinating.



Rozax said:


> Sending them to their room and letting them scream their heads off will not always work.


For some people on both 'sides' of the incident it works well, and more often than you might imagine.



Rozax said:


> Sometimes it is just necessary to pop them on the mouth for their smart cheek or swat them on the rear for running *amok*.  Out-and-out beating a child, of course, is not acceptable.


Can you tell us the difference between a "pop them on the mouth" incident and an "out-and-out beating"?


----------



## don maico

ElaineG said:


> So does spanking a child teach a child to spank?  Smacking a hand that's reaching for a hot stove teach a child to smack hands?
> 
> I think it's a lot of psychobabble actually.
> 
> I worked in a day care center for two years, and as a nanny for another 3. (And, no, I didn't smack or spank in those capacities, but I didn't look down on parents who did). You don't have to teach children to hit, shove, push, pull hair, kick, whatever... Those are human instincts.


Yes but by hitting you are sending out ther message that it is acceptable to hit a small human being. Why is it ok to do that and not ok to hit an adult?


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> Yes but by hitting you are sending out ther message that it ius acceptabl;e to hit a small human being. Why is it ok to do that and not ok to hit an adult?



I know, don maico, that you are not really expecting an answer to that question but the only valid answer is "Because if you hit an adult they'll hit back."


----------



## curly

That or it IS ok to hit an adult 
Or that an adult should already know the things he is supposed to know, don't touch the cooker etc,( i know, i really like the cooker example) and that he is responsible for himself so hitting an adult is just being angry, Why is it better to emotionally blackmail a child( just how some people could call it), or force a child to understand something it just might not be able to understand?

I don't think any punishment or behaviour-modification technique is nice in the short term, although some are just horrible.


----------



## cubaMania

I'm amazed by the verbal and logical contortions being employed as justification for the use of "the rod" to control children.  Of course I do not think every parent who has ever spanked a child is a villain.  Nobody is a perfect parent.  But I do accept the general premise that hitting those weaker than ourselves teaches violence and not much else.

In decades past children in many cultures were routinely subjected to punishments and disciplines which we generally now consider barbaric, cruel, and criminal.  Thank goodness that at least in some societies and among most people we have progressed to rejecting the worst of those abusive treatments of children.  Hopefully the milder forms of abuse which remain will eventually fall out of use as well, as we grow wiser in our child-rearing practices.  I personally count among those abuses any hitting for punishment even when euphemistically called "swat" or "pop" or "smack."

This, I think, introduces confusion into the discussion:


> Smacking a hand that's reaching for a hot stove...


If a parent needs to smack in order to deflect quickly a child's hand from a hot stove burner, or to knock a child to the ground to get them out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, then that blow is not a punishment but rather a move to save the child from harm.  If the parent were to "smack" the child or knock the child to the ground to teach him or her a lesson not to touch stoves or a lesson to look both ways before crossing the street, that would fall into the category under discussion.


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> Yes but by hitting you are sending out ther message that it ius acceptabl;e to hit a small human being. Why is it ok to do that and not ok to hit an adult?





curly said:


> That or it IS ok to hit an adult


By answering "or it is okay to hit an adult" you are not answering the question as it was asked.

We ought to wait for a decent interval before we drift away from pertinent answers


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> I know, don maico, that you are not really expecting an answer to that question but the only valid answer is "Because if you hit an adult they'll hit back."


 not really ! I was looking at the moral angle


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> By answering "or it is okay to hit an adult" you are not answering the question as it was asked.
> 
> )


I dont wish to be pedantic


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Alright, people, I'm here again (What? You thought I was done with you? Not yet...  )

First, let me explain the absence. There were the presidential elections down here, and there were far too many things to be checking on-line than this fascinating discussion... But now we're here... 



Everness said:


> Parents hit their children out of frustration. It has nothing to do with the child, just with the adults. It works for us in different ways: we relieve tension, it's a failed attempt to regain power, etc. It might work in the short term but not in the long term. Hitting actually teaches children to hit.


 
My goodness...! Do I really need to say how strongly I disagree with this, Everness?



maxiogee said:


> If you mean that there are times when they will not respond to reasoning, I would agree with you. Then it is best to wait for later to reason with them.
> However, if you mean that they are un-reason-able then I would counter with the exact opposite —> children are more reason-able than adults, as any parent will tell you. A child can follow very strict reasoning and will (after you have satisfied their umpteenth "Why?") accept what they see as 'reason'. Try it some time with a child - not in a controversial situation, but in an everyday situation of answering one of their 'deep thought' questions. It's fascinating.


 
On the other hand, I totally agree with this! One of the most interesting facts related to kids is their capacity for learning. That, also, is what makes them more vulnerable. That is the reason why I insist so much upon *balance* ON EVERY FIELD, not only in whatever means of discipline we choose. I'm talking about the example we set, the vocabulary we use, the respect/disrespect we show for everything/everyone around, and so on and so forth.




maxiogee said:


> There is a difference between shouting at a child and a display of (even 'verbal') anger - I was referring to _*the violence of a sudden shout, designed to shock and stop the child in its tracks towards whatever danger it was headed for.*_


 
Sorry, I think I had misunderstood you. However, I was also referring to a little smack, "*designed to shock and stop the child in its tracks towards whatever danger (of any sort, not just physical) it was headed for*". Why can't we take there are cultural differences between what we consider acceptable, and that's just it? Of course there are situations when it's much more than a cultural difference, as in GEmatt's example with "Mother Nº1" ... But don't worry, we'll get to that 



> I remember well the teacher who was always threatening punishments which never materialised. Even the good kids misbehaved in his class.


 
I get your point and totally agree with it.




> Of course I would - what would you do then?
> I'd do nothing because that is not the time for doing anything - violence, threats of it, nor reasoned discussion of the finer points of moderate drinking.


 
Alright, not at the very moment. But, would you just let the behaviour go on? Then, what's the difference between the parent and the guy next door, beyond a little chat, christmas gifts and providing food? Who is to help the child learn the social/moral/whatever-else values that will be so helpful for him/her in the future? IMHO, once the spur of the moment is gone, then it's time for measures. 

Just before anyone starts judging again, I don't mean "physical measures". I am talking about whatever conversation, reasoning, and -why not?- punishments that help the young man/woman see the possible consequences of acting that way. When I say punishments, I don't mean spanking, for heaven's sake. Any parent chooses what he/she thinks could work best on the teenager (I think some have mentioned grounding, and similars). On that matter, who knows the child better than the parent?



> As one gets used to being smacked it becomes like a drug. More and more needs to be administered before the parent sees the desired effect. One's tolerance for the pain and humiliation increases


 
Thanks for the explanatory lines, now I see what you mean.



GEmatt said:


> I know, fenix.. just kidding. I'm sure Sweetie will be gentle with you
> 
> But I always considered generalization to be useful when talking about uniform problems, and potentially damaging when addressing issues that feature a lot of variety (can't think of any concrete examples, sorry..).
> 
> It's coming at the problem from opposite ends: Since I'm focusing on the "different degrees", I could happily get involved in stamping out the "Mother#1/upper end" of the scale _within a context_, a bit like the "control sample" that maxigee referred to at the beginning. *Within one cultural context, disciplinary mores will tend toward the homogeneous, so then I have no problem generalizing; it's the appropriate response. Generalization from a point of view of glossing over the differences is imho inviting trouble. *I'm rambling, sorry; and I may have taken you out of context, but appreciate your thoughts


 
Exactly.



maxiogee said:


> I wouldn't be so sure — you're speaking of someone who believes that violence works wonders in some situations.


 
Ouch! That hurts, maxiogee!



badgrammar said:


> If you come from that background, and you are a well-adjusted person, I can see where it is easy to say "I got disciplined physically, and it probably served me well" (I did not say "right"). It is difficult for you to not repeat (some of) the same patterns. But you don't repeat them all, you have evolved.
> 
> But was my husband traumatized by that? Was Venezuela sweetie? I don't know, apparently not that much, if you listen to them.
> 
> We change from generation to generation... I am not the Mom my mother was, nor is husband is the dad his father was. But we all carry on what we learned when we were little, and then we add our own twist.
> 
> Carry on, parents, love your children, do the best you can with the knowledge and strength you have today. You know it isn't good to hit or be aggressive with your kids; but you also remember where you came from. It influences who you are today.


 
You see?  That's what I mean. I'm sure the world would be a much nicer place to live if we could all be as tolerant and open-minded as badgrammar was, in this post.

Thanks a lot, dear. You have set it very clear.



ElaineG said:


> So does spanking a child teach a child to spank? Smacking a hand that's reaching for a hot stove teach a child to smack hands?
> 
> I think it's a lot of psychobabble actually.
> 
> I worked in a day care center for two years, and as a nanny for another 3. (And, no, I didn't smack or spank in those capacities, but I didn't look down on parents who did). You don't have to teach children to hit, shove, push, pull hair, kick, whatever... Those are human instincts.


 
That's exactly my way to see things. Again, *MY* way... 

I can take whatever you guys choose to do, and it is fascinating to just sit here and listen to you all, expressing yourselves. Why do we have to start generalizing, labeling, getting everybody together in the same box, and judging?

Come on, people. I really doubt that is what GEmatt wanted out of this thread from the very beginning.... Am I right?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Tony (or maxiogee, as you prefer), I am completely shocked to read all your comments in this thread, and then read *this*.

Maybe it's me, but I think it is somewhat contradictory. 

I understand that we tend to forget the cultural differences and accept our point of view as absolutelly right -at least within our context. That is normal when it comes down to discussing our values, since we always tend to defend what we believe in.

But, hey, I truly like this sentence of yours: 





> "Could gross generalisations be made about one's next door neighbours or about the folks who live two miles away - and would one's listeners let one get away with it?"


 
Do I *really* need to say more?

Thanks for listening,
VS


----------



## GEmatt

Everness said:


> Parents hit their children out of frustration. It has nothing to do with the child, just with the adults. It works for us in different ways: we relieve tension, it's a failed attempt to regain power, etc.


 
Everness,

Irrespective of whether I condone "the rod" or not, I can only hope that someone who, in all apparent seriousness, can reduce hitting children to not much more than a cathartic activity, like punching-bags or racket-ball, is not and never will be a parent. The idea is either clumsily expressed, or just shockingly, stunningly _wrong_, and value judgements be blowed.


----------



## maxiogee

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Tony (or maxiogee, as you prefer), I am completely shocked to read all your comments in this thread, and then read *this*.
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I think it is somewhat contradictory.



Tony is my name, maxiogee is just my log-in identity.
Please feel free to call me either.
Tony is perfectly okay.

What is contradictory about decrying all forms of violence - whether at the level of parent/child relations or between states?
What is contradictory about saying that the way we identify strangers as 'not us' is "probably not a bad thing"?


----------



## GEmatt

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Why do we have to start generalizing, labeling, getting everybody together in the same box, and judging?
> 
> Come on, people. I really doubt that is what GEmatt wanted out of this thread from the very beginning.... Am I right?


 
Hi Sweetie,

I regard the fascinating "I'm-right.-No, _I'm_-right!" dialogue as essential to the discussion, as long as it doesn't get offensive, which, for the most part, I don't think it has. 99.9% of people will naturally and instinctively be coming down _pretty heavily_ on one side of the debate or the other, and the way both interact, once the inital pleasantries (i.e., accusations of psychological villainy, medieval mindset and domestic sadism) have worn off, is to me as interesting and instructive as any conclusion we're likely to come to. Apart from being terminated by a passing mod. It's all good.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

maxiogee said:


> Tony is my name, maxiogee is just my log-in identity.
> Please feel free to call me either.
> Tony is perfectly okay.
> 
> What is contradictory about decrying all forms of violence - whether at the level of parent/child relations or between states?
> What is contradictory about saying that the way we identify strangers as 'not us' is "probably not a bad thing"?


 

Alright, then Tony it is... 

What I meant is not that there are contradictions inside each argumental line. All the contrary: I believe you have exposed your opinions quite clearly, without allowing confusions or leaving room for doubts.

What I found interestingly confusing (to me) was comparing one of the statements I noticed in the thread about nationality/citizenship/identity/whatever-in-the-world-they-meant-in-that-other-thread-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-one-at-all, with some comments I have noticed in this thread.

As I said, I truly, really liked the expression I quoted above (I said it *here*). *And,* I find it hard to believe that in one context, one could affirmate generalisations must be kept out, but in another context, one is shooting generalisations all over the room!

Everything I have said about this topic, would only be fitting in my own country, and in my own... ehm... social context? 

For example, what would happen if I decided to spank my child in public, let's say, in the US, or Japan, or Australia? Oooohhh... then it stops being suitable.

But on the other hand, you can find parents slapping kids right on the faces, just by taking a walk through the city streets in here. I have seen parents hitting their kids so badly, that the defenseless creature falls to the ground, holding the tears so that the smacking doesn't get any worse. And, even though it is shocking to me, some people consider it acceptable.

So then? What if I decided to generously share my opinions in a cathegorical mood, with parents from any of those two entirely different contexts? What if I defended my own discipline approaches as the only valid ones, in their presence?

My point: everything is context-sensitive, many things are subjective, and some things are just results of the way we were raised.

So, my only plead is: no generalisations at all. Cultures are different, therefore our opinions and choices are different. Let's remember that when we post.


----------



## lfeat

Hola todos,

My understanding of this passage is that the "Rod" is not necessarily a physical item to beat someone with.  It has been explained to me that the "Rod" is the rod of discipline.  In other words if you do not discipline your children in any way, however you so may choose (although beating them into submission is really not a wise choice) , basically you have done them a disservice in life.  

That is how the passage was explained to me.  If you leave your children to their own devices, most likely they will choose the wrong path in life.

lfeat


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

lfeat said:


> Hola todos,
> 
> My understanding of this passage is that the "Rod" is not necessarily a physical item to beat someone with. It has been explained to me that the "Rod" is the rod of discipline. In other words if you do not discipline your children in any way, however you so may choose (although beating them into submission is really not a wise choice) , basically you have done them a disservice in life.
> 
> That is how the passage was explained to me. If you leave your children to their own devices, most likely they will choose the wrong path in life.
> 
> lfeat


 
Totally agree with you.  Finally, somebody boldly dares to talk about the Bible!


----------



## maxiogee

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Alright, then Tony it is...
> 
> As I said, I truly, really liked the expression I quoted above. *And,* I find it hard to believe that in one context, one could affirmate generalisations must be kept out, but in another context, one is shooting generalisations all over the room!


That would depend on what you decide to call a "generalisation".
I believe that there is no circumstance where hitting a child is right.
That's not a generalisation - that's a moral view.



> Everything I have said about this topic, would only be fitting in my own country, and in my own... ehm... social context?
> 
> For example, what would happen if I decided to spank my child in public, let's say, in the US, or Japan, or Australia? Oooohhh... then it stops being suitable.


How the people who see you do that might react is not a concern of mine here. I would see your action as wrong - irrespective of what country you were in when you did it - maybe not illegal in that country, but wrong nevertheless.




> So then? What if I decided to generously share my opinions in a cathegorical mood, with parents from any of those two entirely different contexts? What if I showed a display of my own discipline approaches in their presence, defending them as the only valid ones?


What then? I'd expect that you'd be asked to justify your attitudes, and not with broad generalisations, but with sturdy and well-thought out mo9ral and ethical reasoning.
If you could do that then I would imagine these parents would have to accept your 'right' to chastise your own child. However, they might also have to report you to the relevant authorities for abuse - and then you could rehearse your arguments again, in a court perhaps. 




> My point: everything is context-sensitive, many things are subjective, and some things are just results of the way we were raised.
> 
> So, my plead is: no generalisations at all. Cultures are different, therefore our opinions and choices are different. Let's remember that when we post.


I totally and absolutely disagree. There ARE moral absolutes. Cultures can be wrong in things they have done for generations - slavery is wrong, female genital mutilation is wrong, forcible religious conversion is wrong, the treatment of women, under Islam, is wrong, the abuse of parental power over children is wrong.
Maybe some people might be prepared to argue that there are cases where those things are 'right and proper' - but I'm going to take a lot of convincing. Not _everything_ is context-sensitive! 
(except whyen people ask for help on the WR forums! )


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

This is getting somewhat boring to me...

I have already stated my points of view, especially in posts *10*, *16*, *20*, *26*, *34* and *77*, so I think there is no further thing left to say.

Once again, I respect every parent's decision to act accordingly to what they have learned in life, and if that involves giving up "the rod", good for them. 

I try my best not to judge anybody for anything at all, including personal decisions, such as using physical discipline or not. In return, I would like people didn't judge my decisions as well -or if that is asking too much, could they _*at least*_ keep judgements to themselves?

PS: I think a smack on the rear should not be compared to female genital mutilation or slavery, and those two things don't even fit in the same paragraph than spanking. But that's my view, and my view only. Have a good evening, everybody.


----------



## Everness

GEmatt said:


> Everness,
> 
> Irrespective of whether I condone "the rod" or not, I can only hope that someone who, in all apparent seriousness, can reduce hitting children to not much more than a cathartic activity, like punching-bags or racket-ball, is not and never will be a parent. The idea is either clumsily expressed, or just shockingly, stunningly _wrong_, and value judgements be blowed.



Yep, it's pure catharsis. But it's catharsis for the cowards. Why don't some of these abusive parents hit someone their age and size? Think about it. Those who choose hitting as their favorite and almost exclusive method of discipline should not be parents. But, unfortunately, if you can copulate, you can bring children into this world and raise them (or pretend to raise them) the way you want. You can even beat the living shit out of them. Just try not to get caught. That would be my only unsolicited piece of advice. 

We'll have to wait and see who was wrong and who was right on this one. I live by Paul's words:

_I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God._ (I Corinthians 4:3-5)


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Parents hit their children out of frustration. It has nothing to do with the child, just with the adults. It works for us in different ways: we relieve tension, it's a failed attempt to regain power, etc. It might work in the short term but not in the long term. Hitting actually teaches children to hit.


G'day Everness,
I think that your statement could be taken more clearly if you consider that some parents hit their kids out of frustration, some hit their kids out of ignorance, some hit their kids out of a misplaced sense of doing the right thing, some hit their kids because they have been told to do so by people that the parents revere or trust.

I am still to hear from a parent who hits their kids and thinks that it is a good idea or that it is working.

.,,


----------



## ireney

> Once again, I respect every parent's decision to act accordingly to what they have learned in life, and if that involves giving up "the rod", good for them.



So if they have learnt that it is good and proper to mutilate their child and really believe that we should stand aside and say "good for them"? I am not trying about forcing them to change mind you but condoning it just because they learn that this is what they should do?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

ireney said:


> So if they have learnt that it is good and proper to mutilate their child and really believe that we should stand aside and say "good for them"? I am not trying about forcing them to change mind you but condoning it just because they learn that this is what they should do?


 
This is leading nowhere... Why are my words being constantly taken out of context?

*Please, scroll up this thread and take a sane, healthy, out of prejudices look into what I have been saying from the start, and then say whatever you want to say.* (The main links are *here*)

I am sorry if I make anyone upset with my words, I never express myself this way but, for heaven's sake, you guys are totally misunderstanding the whole thing!! That is what happens when a) we take things out of context and, b) we forget about balance.

To Everness: it is the Bible itself that taught me and those before me about discipline, not any coward abuser setting a wrong example. Are we going to judge? Alright, let's judge then. Some parents I have met have never "put a finger" on their children, but they have also been extremely permissive and let them behave any way they want, even if that involves messing up with other people, disturbing peace, disrespecting moral values and becoming a problem to our society. Shall I take that *EVERY* parent that doesn't share my view on the matter is just like those ones? Shall I believe that not using physical discipline necessarily leads children to that sort of behaviour? Of course *not*! That would make me a narrow-minded foolish person who cannot see beyond her nose!

So, shall we keep on? As you want... The parents I am talking about are not only Venezuelan ones, I am referring to people worldwide, OK? In fact, some (actually, quite a few) of the messiest kids (and grown-ups with harmful values or aggressive/selfish/both behavioural lines) I have ever met were born and raised in other countries, especially English speaking countries. Would that give me the right of judging the American mother of two who is striving to raise her children on her own, or the Australian loving and balanced father of a successfully grown-up businessman, or yourself, or people from your nation, or anyone at all?? Would it?! What kind of a crazy conclusion would that be?! Again, of course *not*!!

So please, don't even suggest doing the same thing in the other way around, and this goes to everybody. Come on, fellow foreros! Let's think twice what we are about to say, especially when it comes to matters that are seen from an entirely different view in cultures other than our own (even in the same hemisphere, continent or even country!)

If what you guys have seen (with or without proves to back it up) is that parents who give *an ocassional smack on the rear* to their kids are sick and abusive, or you simply choose to think that way, seeing it or not, that is your problem. My advice, leave prejudices aside next time you look around.

Sorry again if I am offending anyone, it is not my intention.

I'm done with this thread, it is just wandering 'round in circles... Have a nice day, everyone.

Looking forward to meeting you all in another forum, perhaps one about languages instead of opinions,
A fellow language lover.

PS: Don't you dare say I am talking people from other countries down. Most of my friends are from abroad (and live abroad), and I am much fonder of some them than I am of some of my friends from here. I don't give a damn about nationalities, origins or whatever stupid standards and lines people draw to create division in the world; in fact, cultural differences (I believe) are what make this world so rich. That, as long as we don't start gathering people from a certain background and setting them in tiny little boxes.

Just in case.


----------



## maxiogee

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> PS: I think a smack on the rear should not be compared to female genital mutilation or slavery, and those two things don't even fit in the same paragraph than spanking. But that's my view, and my view only. Have a good evening, everybody.


 
That's your interpretation of the scale of right and wrong - but I included them because there are people and cultures who do not think those things are wrong. They are all different in their damage and offensiveness, but they are equally 'wrong' - there is no scale of wrongness.




Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> To Everness: it is the Bible itself that taught me and those before me about discipline,


The Bible is not an eternally-accurate guide to huamn behaviour. It condones many things which would be deemed (by many people who espouse the Bible as a source of morality) wrong nowadays.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

maxiogee said:


> The Bible is not an eternally-accurate guide to huamn behaviour. It condones many things which would be deemed (by many people who espouse the Bible as a source of morality) wrong nowadays.


 
Good day, maxiogee.  Glad to have you back.

Are we going to discuss about religion, the Bible, and morality involved in both or any of those?

'Coz if we are, we should try doing so through PMs, since that is not either the purpose of this forum, or my intention in the post you quoted.


----------



## Everness

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> If what you guys have seen (with or without proves to back it up) is that parents who give *an ocassional smack on the rear* to their kids are sick and abusive, or you simply choose to think that way, seeing it or not, that is your problem. My advice, leave prejudices aside next time you look around.



There are two extremes when it comes to disciplining children: neglect and abuse. The two basic rights of children are love and limits. Neglectful parents are those who don’t provide for the basic material (clothing, housing, food) and emotional (love, security and recognition) needs of their children and/or don’t set limits to their behavior. Abusive parents are those who confuse healthy authority with pathological authoritarianism. They attempt to exercise complete control over the will of their children by resorting to violence. 

If you have to smack your child on the butt (if you really have to do it please (a) only use your hand and (b) never hit the child on the head), you are in the process of becoming an abusive parent. Why? Because physical methods of punishment have proven to be quite ineffective when it comes to changing children’s undesirable behaviors. Next time, you’ll probably need to use more force to get the same response from the child. Parents don't become abusive overnight. They aren't congenitally abusive either. Human beings learn to be abusive. Therefore, we can also unlearn these behaviors. 

Bottom line: using physical force even in its minimal expression amounts to a defeat when it comes to art of parenting. However, we shouldn’t confuse physical punishment with physical restraint. For example, if your teenager son or daughter wants to leave your house and attend a wild weekend party in the Berkshires, feel free to restrain him/her at will. You’re the parent and you’re in charge. That’s why parents get a fat check at the end of each month. They are expected to do their job!


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

I truly hope this gets to be my last post in this thread -it is making me sick already...

Everness, we do agree in some certain points. However, there is one big thing we definitely don't have in common: cathegorical/impositive attitudes when speaking.

Forgive me if I am pedant, everness (I am getting a little upset after all those solid, overpowering affirmations that leave no room for nobody else's thoughts), but those comments sound too absolute to me. Only a psychiatrist, a politician or a religious fanatic could be more authoritarian!

My first profession is related to pshychology, my second profession is related to human relationships, and my current profession is teaching. That could tell you: a) I have some sort of authority or credibility whatsoever to speak cathegorically on some issues, or b) absolutelly nothing at all.

I am personally inclined to option b, therefore, I don't consider myself in the right to say "this should be done, that should not be done", etcetera.

Nobody (and I mean NOBODY!) has the right to be cathegorical over whatever issues related to personal choices (if any doubt shall arise related to how "personal" I think things are on this matter, carefully check my previous posts instead of jumping on my throat at once). Whether I have 20,000 universitarian degrees on any matter, or I am a victim (?) of any sick pattern (none of which is the case) does not necessarily mean that I know everything on the matter, and much less, that I make the right decisions. And, even if I did, would that mean I should go through the world, preaching what "the right thing" is? I don't think so...

Once again, I apologise to anyone I could be offending. That has never been my intention, and if somehow that is the result, please let me know.

Thanks a lot for the space and time to express myself. Have a nice time, people.


----------



## GEmatt

lfeat said:


> My understanding of this passage is that the "Rod" is not necessarily a physical item to beat someone with. It has been explained to me that the "Rod" is the rod of discipline. In other words if you do not discipline your children in any way, however you so may choose (although beating them into submission is really not a wise choice) , basically you have done them a disservice in life.


 
Ifeat,

Although the thread isn't really about religion ... thanks for your post! I'd never seen it from that angle before, and, translated, it does shift the argument away from "Physical discipline - Right or Wrong?" to "Discipline - Yes or No?" That could be useful (although maybe a topic for a new thread), since on several occasions, those who have not even advocated physical discipline but merely explained their diverse reasons for using it occasionally, have pretty much been pictured as a band of pitchfork demons.


----------



## John-Paul

Everness said:


> That’s why parents get a fat check at the end of each month. They are expected to do their job!



In your dreams dude. I've been a parent for almost 13 years and I'm still waiting for my first check. I guess that's the whole point, you work your behind off, for what? Not for money, nor social status or acceptance. Most people look down on us, don't take us seriously.


----------



## ireney

Venezuelan sweetie I've read what you have posted before. While I disagree with smacking, my previous post on this thread wasn't even touching that matter. 

You said that 





> Once again, I respect every parent's decision to act accordingly to what they have learned in life, and if that involves giving up "the rod", good for them.


.

I used the mutilation as an example. There are people who think this is what should be done. Of course smacking you child is not the same as that but, according to this quote we shouldn't judge if what a parent does is wrong in itself but whether the reason he/she does that is. If he does it out of a mistaken notion of what is right then everything is OK.
I most emphatically disagree.

To take a completely different example, let's think of someone who grows up believing that green people are incapable of learning and behaving like "us" and therefore "we" have every right to keep them as slaves and we're actually doing them a favour bringing them to the civilized world, it's for their own good really. We have to treat them nicely, just like we'd treat a favourite dog for example. 
Now this person is not bad. He has grown up believing and having learnt that's how he must behave. True, we won't call him a bad person just because of what he does since it's out of a misconception that he acts this way; his behavour toward the green men is wrong however no matter what he knows.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

*Grunt* So, I can't get my eyes off this thread, I guess... *Sigh* OK...



ireney said:


> Venezuelan sweetie I've read what you have posted before. While I disagree with smacking, my previous post on this thread wasn't even touching that matter.


 
Well, that is what the thread is all about. If it is not about that matter you are posting, why to bring it up, anyway?



> Now this person is not bad. He has grown up believing and having learnt that's how he must behave. True, we won't call him a bad person just because of what he does since it's out of a misconception that he acts this way; his behavour toward the green men is wrong however no matter what he knows


 
Jeez! And I always thought green men were such fantastic slaves! Now I see why some people claim to have been kidnapped by them. They must be angry for flying all the way here in their UFOs just to be treated like that! 

C'mon, smiles are for free!


----------



## Everness

Sweetie, you state, 



Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Everness, we do agree in some certain points. *However, there is one big thing we definitely don't have in common: cathegorical/impositive attitudes when speaking. *



Then you state,



Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> *Nobody (and I mean NOBODY!) has the right to be cathegorical over whatever issues related to personal choices *(if any doubt shall arise related to how "personal" I think things are on this matter, carefully check my previous posts instead of jumping on my throat at once).



After all we aren't so different!


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Everness said:


> Sweetie, you state,
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Venezuelan_sweetie*
> Everness, we do agree in some certain points. *However, there is one big thing we definitely don't have in common: cathegorical/impositive attitudes when speaking. *
> 
> Then you state,
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Venezuelan_sweetie*
> *Nobody (and I mean NOBODY!) has the right to be cathegorical over whatever issues related to personal choices *(if any doubt shall arise related to how "personal" I think things are on this matter, carefully check my previous posts instead of jumping on my throat at once).
> 
> After all we aren't so different!
> __________________


 

*Mourns*
(Sarcastic) Awwww! You've caught me!! I'm just as absolute as you!!! Oh my goodness, what are my friends going to say?!?

Come on, is that all you got? Well, it is nice to know one struggles hard to show a personal point of view and express how mad one is for being misunderstood, trying not to offend anybody in the way, and all the feedback one gets is THIS!!!  

Yearning for the times when we don't confuse expression with imposition, and opinions with dogmatism,
Me.


----------



## lfeat

GEmatt said:


> Ifeat,
> 
> Although the thread isn't really about religion ... thanks for your post! I'd never seen it from that angle before, and, translated, it does shift the argument away from "Physical discipline - Right or Wrong?" to "Discipline - Yes or No?" That could be useful (although maybe a topic for a new thread), since on several occasions, those who have not even advocated physical discipline but merely explained their diverse reasons for using it occasionally, have pretty much been pictured as a band of pitchfork demons.


 
I really wasn't intending it to be about religion, I had read the passage that was quoted at the top of your thread and didn't really read the rest, sorry, so here is my response.

I am a parent of 4 children from adults to a 9 year old and yes I have used spankings occasionally to reinforce the negative results of innapropriate behavior.  I am an advocate of both ralking to children as well as some physical discomfort in the form of a swat on the butt if needed.  The thing is, in my opinion, Time-outs and some other "kinder gentler" methods only prepare children for how they will handle their extra time when they are in jail as adults.  To effectively discipline someone you have to take away something that is valuable to them such as TV, Playstation, whatever their job even as adults.  It is entirely meant to change the negative behavior.  When a child is not able to undrstand adult logic, it is sometimes necessary to use physical discomfort to get your point across that "your behavior is not acceptable".  Try using logic on a two, three, four or even a five year old. They just don't have the mental capabilities at that age to understand.  There, wheww I said my piece.

Lfeat
"A pitchfork wielding demon" 
(I'm still waiting for my parental check as well lol)


----------



## .   1

lfeat said:


> I really wasn't intending it to be about religion, I had read the passage that was quoted at the top of your thread and didn't really read the rest, sorry, so here is my response.
> 
> I am a parent of 4 children from adults to a 9 year old and yes I have used spankings occasionally to reinforce the negative results of innapropriate behavior.


At what age do you intend to stop using a swat on the butt to try to get your point across?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

lfeat said:


> The thing is, in my opinion, Time-outs and some other "kinder gentler" methods only prepare children for how they will handle their extra time when they are in jail as adults.


 
Are you suggesting that the world's prisons only hold those who weren't physically chastised as children?
I would suggest that the world's prisons hold proportionately more of those who were led to believe that violence, or the threat of it, will change someone's thinking rapidly.




> Try using logic on a two, three, four or even a five year old. They just don't have the mental capabilities at that age to understand.


Then how come they have the mental capabilities to understand that Daddy or Mummy can use violence to achieve their ends but Junior will only merit more violence if she or he try violence on their siblings or playmates when they aren't getting their way?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this post has given it a new (and refreshing) twist. 



lfeat said:


> To effectively discipline someone you have to take away something that is valuable to them such as TV, Playstation, whatever their job even as adults. It is entirely meant to change the negative behavior.


 
I fully agree with that statement. As a child, I would have rather be hit to blood than having my bike or my favourite books taken away. Of course, my parents would ALWAYS "choose" taking my stuff away, turning off the TV or "grounding" me.  

That used to remind me that a bad (or at least, improper) behaviour would always have consequences on whatever (or even, whoever) I cared about. That is a nice teaching for the future, don't you think? 

Besides, when those measures are taken, you have no choice but to get yourself something useful to do, such as washing dishes, finishing homework, or simply chatting up with your siblings 



> When a child is not able to understand adult logic, it is sometimes necessary to use physical discomfort to get your point across that "your behavior is not acceptable".
> (...)
> Try using logic on a two, three, four or even a five year old. They just don't have the mental capabilities at that age to understand.


 
I'm not sure I agree. I might be wrong, but I believe a child is, generally speaking, capable of understanding logic at practically all times, if you try to give explanations that suit their ages (even if they're 2, 3, 4, 5, or 89 years old). Those sweet, messy little creatures have an amazing capacity!

I don't remember who said (way above this post) something related to the capacity for reason you can find in young children. I think it was .,, (or Tony, I can't remember now) who said that if you are patient enough to give the child all the information he/she needs, the child can leave you breathless, with his/her understanding of the situation.

My mother used to call us "her little sponges", since she was quite aware of this fact: kids absorb whatever they see in their surroundings. That's why a nice talk (and a well-set example) works ten times better than removing their Playstations with no further word. My choice: mix both measures when reasoning doesn't work by itself.

Of course, "kids are not small adults", they're KIDS. They have limitations. But, the way I see it, it's not that they don't _understand_, but rather, that they are young and messy, and love exploring limits. Besides, they still lack of the _matureness_ to tell things apart and make some certain choices in the right way. 

In those cases, and when it is an emergency (as -I think it was- badgrammar depicted with the example of the child beating his sibling), when you have worn out all possible methods and the behaviour goes on, sometimes a little shock can take the child back in the right track. Or, so I think...

-----

Now, here we find an interesting point:


. said:


> At what age do you intend to stop using a swat on the butt to try to get your point across?
> 
> .,,


 
Good question! I have a few ideas of my own, but those are too subjective to be shared. In other words, I'm sick of judgements!


----------



## lfeat

maxiogee said:


> Are you suggesting that the world's prisons only hold those who weren't physically chastised as children?
> I would suggest that the world's prisons hold proportionately more of those who were led to believe that violence, or the threat of it, will change someone's thinking rapidly.
> 
> 
> Then how come they have the mental capabilities to understand that Daddy or Mummy can use violence to achieve their ends but Junior will only merit more violence if she or he try violence on their siblings or playmates when they aren't getting their way?


 
Mommy and Daddy are not using "violence" to get their way in this case: they are using it to correct negative behaviors. Junior is using violence that he _naturally_ would to get what he wants. Maybe they see no difference from a clinical point of view, however from an adult perspective and in my opinion, there is a difference. 

All I am know is that it worked for me. All of my children to this point have never been in jail, have been respectful to their elders, have done extremely well in school and are really good kids. And to answer the other member as to when to stop using phycial punishment? I have not had to swat my daughter's behind in years. nor my 16,18, or 21 year old's!

I realize we will never be in agreement one way or the other, neither will you be able to sway my opinion, nor I yours. I am simply responding to the question that was pointed at the beginning of this thread.

lfeat

OOOOOPS somehow I managed to post one of my responses in Maxiogee's quote, sorry here it is in the right spot.

I think you would mean just the opposite. Generally speaking and I do mean "generally", the prison population holds predominantly "violent offenders" not "those who only were led to believe that violence, or the threat of it". Those people you mention are generally victims. Those that are afraid that something will happen to them if they go out. etc...


----------



## lfeat

Venezuelan_Sweetie, 

"When a child is not able to understand adult logic, it is sometimes necessary to use physical discomfort to get your point across that "your behavior is not acceptable". 
(...)
Try using logic on a two, three, four or even a five year old. They just don't have the mental capabilities at that age to understand." 

Let me clarify this a little. Junior, the two or three year old is pulling the cat's tail making the cat scream to high heaven. I pull junior aside and explain to him that you can't pull the cat's tail because you need to be nice to the kitty. I explain that animals are our friends and we shouldn't pull their tails because it hurts them. And I tell him that the reason why the cat is screaming is that your are hurting him and that is not acceptable behavior. Junior smiles, says "otay", runs over and pulls the cat's tail again (that is of course if the cat hasn't run away) because in Junior's mind he doesn't realize the reason that the cat is screaming is because it hurts, he thinks that he is just getting a noise out of the cat that he has not come across before. Now, if Junior understands adult reasoning, he will not pull the cat's tail, (unless of course Junior is sadistic and gets pleasure out of hurting the poor creature) because it has been explained to him properly.

I'm not sure Junior would understand. 

I do know that if Junior got a swat on the but and told "no" firmly prior to the long winded explanation and afterwards was told that he was loved and that pulling the cat's tail was inappropriate, I believe that the end result would be that Junior would be nice to the cat.

whew
lfeat


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

lfeat said:


> Venezuelan_Sweetie,
> 
> (...)
> 
> lfeat


 
Well, I must confess you gave me a really nice laugh with this (particularly with the "otay" reply  )

I see your point, and I admit it sounds logical.

I'd take the time to reply to that, but it's Friday evening, and it's time for turning off this blinding glass square and going out for a ride.

Don't miss me too much this weekend  

See you!


----------



## .   1

G'day lfeat,
I know that your heart is in the right place but your example is just too funny.  You have to look at it symbolically as the child probably would and the cat definitely will.
You will confuse the child if it is too young to reason with by interfering in a self correcting cycle.
If you stop the child by hitting it you will cause the child to associate pleasure with hurting the cat and pain with being caught by the parent.  This is a road to gaol.
If you tell the child that kitty will bight and scratch if you are cruel a very short sharp lesson from the rule book of fang and claw will allow the kitty to tell the child what is unacceptable behaviour and you will be the wise consolling hug saying that next time you had better listen when I tell you something.

.,,


----------



## lfeat

I certainly can't disagree with your "self-correcting fang and claw" analogy. 

I can only draw from my own personal experiences as a child and as a parent as to the proper way to discipline a child.  As I have stated before, if physical discomfort in the form of a spanking is delivered with love, compassion and with an intent to correct seriously bad behavior, I personally have no problems with it. 

I was trying to show a general analogy of the mindset of a small child vs an adult when it comes to experience and rational thinking.

lfeat


----------



## ireney

So, the "go in you room" "no TV" and such are out of the question then? I mean, with a cat I'd wait for the cat to explain to the kid why it is to its best interest not to do it again as dot commas suggested. If it was with a dog I'd intervene before the dog lost its patience (or because it would be the household's dog which means it would suffer without snapping at its young tormentor). 
You go by logic (preferring examples that might get through to toddler) and then you have such a huge repertoire of possible punishments to choose from before you get physical!


----------



## lfeat

ireney said:


> So, the "go in you room" "no TV" and such are out of the question then? I mean, with a cat I'd wait for the cat to explain to the kid why it is to its best interest not to do it again as dot commas suggested. If it was with a dog I'd intervene before the dog lost its patience (or because it would be the household's dog which means it would suffer without snapping at its young tormentor).
> You go by logic (preferring examples that might get through to toddler) and then you have such a huge repertoire of possible punishments to choose from before you get physical!


 
These are all valid points. I'm just curious about the comment regarding the dog. "(or because it would be the household's dog which means it would suffer without snapping at its young tormentor)." 

Does this mean the dog would suffer without snapping back because it is the families' dog and it knows not to bite the kid or....or that the dog would be punished before the child would be in order to keep Junior safe? And what type of punishment is Junior to understand so that in the future he will not go up to the dog and pull on it's tail again when you are not looking and end up in the hospital for bites to....wherever? My point is that taking something away from a toddler is usually ineffective to a point because of relative importance. 

Let me reiterate... this is NOT about the cat, dog or whatever, it is just an analogy to demonstrate that children especially at the ages that I have mentioned do not have the same logical reasoning that adults do because of their ages, the growth cycles and lack of real life experiences; perhaps the wrong one to have used.


----------



## lfeat

Hola todos,

Let me give you one more example and then I will get off of my soapbox....The other night my daughter had a Christmas program at school.  Lots of people there.  Everyone was trying to listen to the program which was in the gym with loud noisy floors.  During the program there was a 3-4 year old that was running amuck literally making all kinds of distractions to the parents that were trying to watch their children perform.  This was obviously very rude of the child who of course didn't know better because at his stage of life things are still "all about me".  The parent went and picked Junior up and explained to him that he will sit there and be quiet because he was bothering other people that were trying to listen to the program.  As soon as he was sat down he jumped up and started running around again.  The parent went and got him, gave him the same story and he did the same thing again.  The next time the parent and child disappeared for a short time, and when they returned, the child a a tear in his eye and, lo and behold, he did not do the same thing for the rest of the night.  I can only summize what transpired, but I wouldn't have to think about it too long.  oh and to the obvious delight of the other parents, they were able to enjoy the program for the rest of the night.  (I'm pretty sure that she didn't tell him that he couldn't play Nintendo for a week if he didn't sit there and be quiet)

lfeat
This is surely to stir more debate..........


----------



## ireney

Ifeat I meant that "our" dog  (in all the cases I know of)  patiently puts up with any kind of torment without responding.

For me separating me from my brother worked wonders. In fact, according to my mom, she only had to do that once. After that the mere threat would have us both behaving like angels. It wouldn't work for all but then each parent knows what works better for his/her child.

I am not saying that you can reason with a small child the same way that you can with an adult. I had to read enough Evolutionary psychology (at least that's what it is called in Greek and I bet we just translated the term) to know that kids' logic doesn't "work" the same way ours does (and the younger they are the more funny -both meanings of the word- it is). However giving the logical reason for not doing something is more or less a must although I realise that this is another discussion.

Reason however quite often (if not in most of the cases) won't work. There are two alternatives after telling the kid not to do something for this and that reason : a) let the kid find out why (have the cat scratch it, have his toy destroyed because he won't listen when you tell that there IS a breaking point etc b) punish the kid (because the "natural punishment", the repercurssion, will not be obvious to the kid). I think that there are other punishments that can be implemented and work just as well as (if not better than)  physical punishment.


----------



## .   1

lfeat said:


> These are all valid points. I'm just curious about the comment regarding the dog. "(or because it would be the household's dog which means it would suffer without snapping at its young tormentor)."
> 
> Does this mean the dog would suffer without snapping back because it is the families' dog and it knows not to bite the kid or....or that the dog would be punished before the child would be in order to keep Junior safe? And what type of punishment is Junior to understand so that in the future he will not go up to the dog and pull on it's tail again when you are not looking and end up in the hospital for bites to....wherever? My point is that taking something away from a toddler is usually ineffective to a point because of relative importance.
> 
> Let me reiterate... this is NOT about the cat, dog or whatever, it is just an analogy to demonstrate that children especially at the ages that I have mentioned do not have the same logical reasoning that adults do because of their ages, the growth cycles and lack of real life experiences; perhaps the wrong one to have used.


Properly trained house dogs are properly trained to not bight.

The logic is illustrated by this incident that occurred to my neice when she was about five.  We had a large male Labrador Retriever who was an inside the house pet.  The dog was lying in front of the fire minding his own business and my neice was bored and decided to get some attention by annoying the dog so she walked up to him and pulled his tail up backwards and lifted his rump off the floor with the child's mother watching foolishly and not intervening.  The child's mother was a harsh woman who considered her child to be perfect and had made the point repeatedly that she and she alone was the mother of the child and no interference in child raising was allowed so my dad kept his mouth shut.  Both mother and daughter were aware that the dog did not ever bight under any circumstances so both felt safe to torment at will.
The dog put up with it two or three times and then turned to the child and barked right in her face.  His mouth opened up so wide that he virtually enveloped her head and he probably almost deafened her with the bark and she never bothered him again.
I am told that dogs can't smile but I will swear that as Joe Dog lay down after the bark I saw his lips move.


----------



## mytwolangs

GEmatt said:


> _"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die / Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23: 13–14, KJV)_


 
The reason it is controversial, as many things in the bible, is because whoever wrote it was really bad with English. No one can really understand what it is trying to say. 

I have never "beatest" my kid. I might have spanked his ass a time or two, but I have never "beatest'ed" him.


----------



## Everness

lfeat said:


> When a child is not able to undrstand adult logic, it is sometimes necessary to use physical discomfort to get your point across that "your behavior is not acceptable".  Try using logic on a two, three, four or even a five year old. They just don't have the mental capabilities at that age to understand.  There, wheww I said my piece.



It's true that younger children don't respond to verbal commands or limits. Sometimes you need to restrain them. But again, restraining isn't the same as hitting. The former is an appropriate and even required method of discipline and the other one is neither. Parents need to use discipline methods that are developmentally sound. It won't hurt to revisit Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg's theories of intellectual, psychosocial and moral development respectively. 

Let's remember that the ultimate goal of parental discipline is self-discipline: we want the child to decide by himself/herself what to do and not to do. Kids end up internalizing adults' sense of right and wrong, desirable and undesirable behaviors, etc. You want them to be on automatic pilot.

I also need to point out that teenagers and young adults also fail to understand adult logic, not just younger kids. Even adults don't understand adult logic! Going back to the example of your teenager who wants to attend a wild party in the Bershires. Try telling him/her: "You're not going anywhere." My hunch is that words won't be enough. So you'll need to stand in front of the door and restrain him/her. You might end up wrestling with your kid and do some Nacho Libre stuff. Your neighbors might call the cops because of the yelling. They might think you're killing him/her. Maybe your kid manages to get out of the house through a window. What do you do? You chase him/her down the street, tackle him/her, and drag him/her back into your home. Of course all your neighbors will be looking at the unfolding drama. But you know what? Screw the police and your neighbors! Your love for your child comes first. 

My 2 cents!


----------



## cuchuflete

mytwolangs said:


> The reason it is controversial, as many things in the bible, is because *whoever wrote it was really bad with English.* No one can really understand what it is trying to say.



Not at all surprising, as the original was composed before English existed.  

Sorry to beat you with such an inconvenient, non-biblical fact.

Should ignorant remarks lead to having one's mouth —or keyboard— washed with yellow soap?


----------



## Fleurs263

I have to be honest form the outset and say I stopped reading some of the remarks and spent ten minutes deciding whether it was worth the effort to answer all those who are still advocating and justifying the use of violence against children;  but, well why not, since the children do not have the same rights as adults, are not able to defend themselves and are 'voiceless'. so to remind you, we are talking about using violence against SMALL children .... and I think that the adults who have used spankings should at least be honest and admit they failed to find a more positive way to deal with the situation. Love breeds love and violence breeds violence and the idea that a time out or removing a playstation from a child as punishment will lead to jail is rubbish.  There was a time when it was acceptable for children in England to work in workhouses, up chimneys and down the mines  ... progress and evolution will hopefully eradicate the rest of the child labour market around the world, child prostitution and any form of violence against children as a method of control. The argument that a smack will stop unacceptable behaviour is a poor excuse for parents being unimaginative and incapable of finding other ways to deal with a situation. Think how you deal with friends or work colleagues  ... I bet you don't  give them a smack and they're likely to be about the same size as you.


----------



## GEmatt

I have to apologize. After all these posts, it's only just occurred to me to see what Wikipedia's got to say on the matter. There are two articles that may be of interest to forer@s who have been interested enough to post, namely this one, and this one (particularly section 2; and nota bene comments regarding 'neutrality' and 'worldview'!). I do feel I have to step in, here, however, as some straw men are getting in the way of the action.


> advocating and justifying the use of violence against children


Noone as I understand it is seriously doing this, here. The position that "physical discipline equals violence" is a perspective that some have chosen to embrace, but one that utterly demonizes well-intentioned parents who, lovingly and even sparingly, do practise some form of physical discipline, while at the same time oversimplifying the topic and thereby making things easier for those who condemn such practices. It's like painting the whole target black, to increase one's chances of scoring a bullseye.
I don't doubt the sincerity behind this perspective, but the effect is to neatly side-step thornier issues of custom, change, and moderation. Obviously it is easier to deal with a uniform problem than with one that features diversity, but fundamentally I see at best, a shortsightedness, and at worst, a dishonesty in glossing over a variety of problems, and suggesting that they all be forced through the same-shaped solution.
Please can we not tar so large a group with the same brush, unless the conclusion to be drawn regarding where to draw the line between discipline and abuse is that we are collectively incapable of drawing any line at all.
One of the premises here is that there _is_ a difference between violence (i.e. assault & battery, grievous bodily harm, sexual abuse, psychological terror, all of which are felonies and carry jail terms), and a slap on the backside for reasons of discipline (which may be ill-advised and misguided, yes, but jail? Give me a break.) Look for example at what type of corporal punishment methods may still be deemed acceptable, according to the policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (which, incidentally, condemns some types of punishment while condoning others, implicitly suggesting that the problem is not as uniform as would be convenient for some to believe). As a concerned/weary/exasperated/frightened father at his wits' end, I may administer an open-handed swat to my 4 year-old's bottom, and not be condemned for it. As a trained martial artist, I could also break a concrete slab with an open-handed swat. Applying latter swat to former bottom could only flatteringly be called psychopathic, but I keep hearing voices here that would have me believe there is no difference between the two, and remain as unconvinced as ever.


> we are talking about using violence against SMALL children


Well, no we are not, actually. My aunt confessed that she had, in her 40's, had her "ears boxed" by her mother (in her 80's), for having dared to use a 4-letter word in her presence, so no. No age-specific comments were ever made at the beginning of this thread, so this is either something of your own invention, or something that was picked up along the way, and in either case introduces an unhelpfully emotive element into an already sensitive topic. I appreciate that this brings out peoples' protective instincts, but if you are going to distort the topic of the thread, please be kind enough to say so, so that other posters can put your and their comments into a more balanced context.


> violence breeds violence


I don't buy this; in fact, I think it's one of the more inane slogans to have been bandied about on this thread. It's by no means the first time it has been mentioned, so I am not singling Fleurs263 out, in particular.

To my permanent adolescent disgruntlement, I continued to receive swats well after I was big enough and old enough to hit back. The fact that I never even _considered_ hitting back is proof enough, for me, of the vacuousness of this and similar statements, even if they hold true in only one case, i.e. my own. This is just a soundbite, and is almost as Old Testament sounding as the passage at the start of the thread.


> Think how you deal with friends or work colleagues ... I bet you don't give them a smack and they're likely to be about the same size as you.


This has been mentioned before, too. I didn't understand the analogy then, and I still don't. As far as I'm aware, all of those up until now who have said they use physical discipline were referring to their own children. If, in a kafkaesque sequence of events, one's friends and work colleagues also turned out to be one's children, then I imagine those who use physical discipline would stick to their principles. But these are different social groups, different relations between those groups, and different roles within those relations, so I don't see how any analogy can be fitting.


----------



## GEmatt

lfeat said:


> Time-outs and some other "kinder gentler" methods only prepare children for how they will handle their extra time when they are in jail as adults. To effectively discipline someone you have to take away something that is valuable to them such as TV, Playstation, whatever their job even as adults. It is entirely meant to change the negative behavior. When a child is not able to undrstand adult logic, it is sometimes necessary to use physical discomfort to get your point across that "your behavior is not acceptable".


 
Hi lfeat,

Not sure I agree with the privation method, really. How does confiscating the Playstation lead to physical discomfort? If a child is unable to understand adult logic, then how will they understand the reasons why their computer is being taken away from them? I may be completely misunderstanding you  ... but my actual question is What do you mean by "time-out"? I'm not familiar with the expression. Is it like grounding a child/teenager; or having a "chat" to reason with the child why "Poppa is very very sad"; or is it taking time out yourself, to approach the child again when things have calmed down..?


----------



## fenixpollo

GEmatt said:


> The position that "physical discipline equals violence" is a perspective that some have chosen to embrace, but one that utterly demonizes well-intentioned parents who, lovingly and even sparingly, do practise some form of physical discipline, while at the same time oversimplifying the topic and thereby making things easier for those who condemn such practices. It's like painting the whole target black, to increase one's chances of scoring a bullseye.


 The position that you mention does not have the intent of demonizing well-intentioned parents. The intent of this position is to explain a worldview in which degrees of violence are not justifiable. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, but we will all have different opinions about what the exceptions to that rule are (self-defense? war? death penalty?). Likewise, while we all recognize that violence against other humans is not a good thing, we can't agree on what situations justify violence. I think there are very few situations in which violence is justified, while the relativist position justifies their (admittedly mild) violence with notions of "intent" and "moderation".

At the risk of over-extending your metaphor, I'm not trying to paint the whole target black. I'm saying that shooting a bullet at the target is the same as shooting an arrow or a BB (with an air rifle); while the relativist position is to say that if you shoot a BB at the target, it's OK because the intent is to have fun, not to do damage. 

 
It's all target practice to me.



> I don't doubt the *sincerity* behind this perspective, but the effect is to neatly side-step thornier issues of custom, change, and moderation. Obviously it is easier to deal with a uniform problem than with one that features diversity, but fundamentally I see at best, a shortsightedness, and at worst, a *dishonesty* in glossing over a variety of problems, and suggesting that they all be forced through the same-shaped solution.


 You don't doubt my sincerity, but you think I may be lying to you. Hmm....  It seems like your statement is a logical fallacy, but I don't think that it's a contradiction -- merely your true feelings showing through your rhetoric.


> Please can we not tar so large a group with the same brush, unless *the conclusion to be drawn regarding where to draw the line between discipline and abuse is that we are collectively incapable of drawing any line at* *all*.


Exactly.


----------



## lfeat

GE

A "time -out" means that because you are behaving innapropriately, you have to go sit out this activity for a designated "time-out" period.  It has been suggested that it is 1 minute per age of the child.  So if you get a "time-out" and you are 2 years old, you get two minutes in "time-out".  Generally the child will go back and commit the same offense because "time-out" is such an abstract idea for a two year old. 

It is not dissimilar to incarcerating an adult.  And as we are aware, the recitivism rates for prisoners is relatively high here in the US.  I don't have the exact statistics but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70%.  Now the American kid who maliciously spray painted the cars in Mayalasia who was "caned", if you remember that issue; I would suggest that he now only puts paint where it belongs.  So you decide....

Let me clarify this a little bit.  I read fluers263 post, and for him/her to suggest that parents smack their kids because they use it as a poor excuse, and they are unamaginitive, bla bla bla, is a travesty because we are not all that unimaginative and spanking a child is always, at least in my book,  a last and final resort after all other options have failed.  

I have NEVER struck my children in anger, and after _creatively_ using other forms of discipline which many of them do work,  spanking was always used as a _last resort_(with effective results I might add),  and to belabour this point even further, as I am growing weary of this debate, I have not had to spank my children in years, because they (the older kids) remember every time they were spanked and never repeated the same act again because they knew the consequences for their behavior. And, as older kids, they do remember when they were grounded, the TV priveledges taken away etc. but not every instance.  It wasn't that important to them for them to remember.  

I too, can remember when I was spanked for my very ill behavior at times and I can assure you that it was very powerful in changing that behavior.  I thought very seriously about the consequences of performing the action again that got me in that much trouble in the first place, and discretion was always the better part of valor, so I chose to do the right thing.

Regarding physical discomfort and Playstation.  I had run those two together and should have been seperate issues. 

lfeat


----------



## GEmatt

Thanks Ifeat, I know what it is, now. Brings back the memories.

GEm


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> Please can we not tar so large a group with the same brush, unless *the conclusion to be drawn regarding where to draw the line between discipline and abuse is that we are collectively incapable of drawing any line at* all.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

.,,


----------



## .   1

> violence breeds violence


 


GEmatt said:


> To my permanent adolescent disgruntlement, I continued to receive swats well after I was big enough and old enough to hit back. The fact that I never even _considered_ hitting back is proof enough, for me, of the vacuousness of this and similar statements, even if they hold true in only one case, i.e. my own.


Are you happy with your parents for making the effort to swat you well after you were big enough and old enough to hit back (defend yourself) and do you intend to pay your parents the ultimate compliment by repeating their behaviour with your own children?
I am sorry to say that your statement is a self demonstrating falsehood.
It is not possible for you as an adolesent to be permenantly disgruntled about being swatted because you considered that you were big enough and old enough to hit back unless you considered that you were big enough and old enough to hit back.  You may have not _seriously_ considered defending yourself but you most certainly considered hitting back but I suspect that the consideration came to a screeching halt at the point of Newton's Third Law.

.,,


----------



## mytwolangs

Plus, when one lives under another person's roof, one pretty much has to take whatever crap is dished out. I am not saying it is fair or even right.

We just do not live in a day and age where physical abuse is the answer.
If it were the answer, then what the hell was the question?


----------



## maxiogee

mytwolangs said:


> Plus, when one lives under another person's roof, one pretty much has to take whatever crap is dished out.



This is indicative of part of the problem - that thinking only applies to non-familial adults, surely. 
The roof "belongs" to all who are part of the family.
Just as a very young child has no sense of 'self' and sees mother and father as extensions of itself which it manipulates to provide food and comfort, so the parents ought to see the child as an extension of themselves and not as a distinct unit to which crap can be dished.
Parents who do not almost lose the word "I" from their vocabulary in favour of the word "we" are showing, in my opinion, some form of a less-that-total commitment to the true concept of family.


----------



## GEmatt

Hi .,,


> Are you happy with your parents for making the effort to swat you well after you were big enough and old enough to hit back (defend yourself)


It's a bit of both. Of course I wasn't pleased to still be swatted, but it was how I was brought up, and I came to expect a swat if I overstepped the lines that my parents had drawn. They weren't that strict at all, looking back; it's more that I deliberately tried to push the boundaries. If they had only started swatting, say, in the teenage years, I guess I'd have been outraged, but I was used to it. There was no progressive escalation of violence, or anything. I accept that this may sound incredibly perverse (or sad), but there was a sort of comfort in it, because rightly or wrongly, it showed me that they were still bothered.



> and do you intend to pay your parents the ultimate compliment by repeating their behaviour with your own children?


Definitely not, where intentions are concerned. I don't think I could bring myself to do it. I haven't analyzed my own behaviour to that extent, but it's not a matter of whether I judge or reason physical discipline to be acceptable or unacceptable, it's more on a gut level. But why would it be a compliment to my parents if I did? I'd like to hope I can somehow 'filter' through my own experiences growing up, discard what I think was unimportant or uncalled for, and transmit what I think is essential for a happy and balanced child.





> You may have not _seriously_ considered defending yourself but you most certainly considered hitting back(...)


I didn't consider hitting back. Hitting my parents would be just as out of the question for me as hitting children, or hitting anyone, for that matter. "Defending myself" is different, yes. I not only considered it, I _did_ defend myself, eventually, if dodging counts as defense. Not sure I follow your logic regarding disgruntlement. I was disgruntled because I considered myself big enough and old enough _not to be swatted_, not because I considered myself big enough and old enough to hit back.


----------



## .   1

GEmatt said:


> Definitely not, where intentions are concerned. I don't think I could bring myself to do it. I haven't analyzed my own behaviour to that extent, but it's not a matter of whether I judge or reason physical discipline to be acceptable or unacceptable, it's more on a gut level. But why would it be a compliment to my parents if I did?


I assume that there are reasons that cause you to support corporal punishment as a concept but reject it as a reality having experienced being swatted as a child you quite rightly decide to not swat as a parent.  This is the most valid argument supporting the argument that hitting children is not necessary or productive and supports my statement that repeating your own parents' behaviour when alternate behavioural patterns are available is highly complimentary of your parents.

Robert


----------



## GEmatt

Oh, I see. Like a "tribute" to their methods? No.. perish the thought. Times change. I was only given the open-hand treatment. _Their_ respective parents took to them with belts, rulers and coat-hangers.

I'll have to do this in two parts, sorry - I'm in a cybercafé and my time's fast disappearing... have nice days, evenings, ..whichever is appropriate..
Good night,
Matt

PS:





> reasons that cause you to support corporal punishment as a concept but reject it as a reality


This is the way I feel about it, yes. I just wanted to clarify though that I reject it as a reality where my _own_ behaviour is concerned.


----------



## GEmatt

Sorry for taking a while to reply, though I've been replying to other posts, since. I felt yours was a very well-considered post, and wanted to do it as much justice as I could.





> The position that you mention does not have the intent of demonizing well-intentioned parents. The intent of this position is to explain a worldview in which degrees of violence are not justifiable. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule (...), the relativist position justifies their (admittedly mild) violence with notions of "intent" and "moderation".


I realize that, fenix. I didn't say that the intent was to discredit or demonize. I meant that "demonization" is the to-be-expected effect, regardless of intent. I should have expressed this more clearly.
I'm not sure what the worldview you are representing is called (absolutism?) I don't understand the notion of degrees of violence not being "justifiable", intrinsically. Not "acceptable", yes, as violence generally is. (I'm not trying to water the issue down, if ever.)
If I give my young one a milder-than-mild swat (less than a swat, more than a tap, let's say), I can say that I did not administer a heavier swat, because anything harsher would have been neither necessary nor justifiable (assuming the swat had its effect); I've justified my degree of violence. I may be misunderstanding your definition of "justifiable", based on my reading of your post(s). I otherwise agree with everying you have said.





> I'm not trying to paint the whole target black. I'm saying that shooting a bullet at the target is the same as shooting an arrow or a BB (with an air rifle); while the relativist position is to say that if you shoot a BB at the target, it's OK because the intent is to have fun, not to do damage. It's all target practice to me.


As far as the metaphor goes, I agree; or even worse, that "it's ok, because no standpoint can validly argue that it isn't." (I'm assuming here that parents don't discipline their children for "fun", or to do damage. But I know sad cases of both exist.)





> You don't doubt my sincerity, but you think I may be lying to you. Hmm....


I don't think that you may be lying to me, fenix. I think you've introduced a personal note that I in good faith was trying to avoid, if not always successfully. You have expressed your ideas clearly, thoughtfully and very patiently, and I agree with much, if not most, of what you are saying. There's a healthy point of contention somewhere, but I'm still scratching my head trying to identify it.





> It seems like your statement is a logical fallacy, but I don't think that it's a contradiction -- merely your true feelings showing through your rhetoric.


It may well be, or come close. I believe the contradiction you refer to is between being sincere and dishonest at the same time (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see this as contradictory, as being truthful and untruthful at the same time would be. I meant that it is possible to denounce violence in a passionate and heartfelt way, while denying to oneself the possibility that adopting a top-down, generalizing stance might not be the best approach. As for my personal view, I'm more intent on a real-life solution (having worked with youngsters and seen first-hand the physical signs of abuse), and am ultimately happy to let logical consistency go out the window, if I don't feel it's contributing toward making a difference. I wonder what you think my "true feelings" are? That I'm a closet child-beater, perhaps?


> Exactly.


I disagree with this. I'm not prepared to believe that it is impossible to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, when it's not fundamentally about logical consistency, rights, wrongs, or justifiabilities, but about our kids' well-being. Ok, so that's my idealistic side showing through, but I do believe in it. With sincerity.

I take back my earlier mention of "absolutist", with regard to your own view. Having re-read you, I see your standpoint more along pluralist lines, as is mine. I have never advocated child punishment, merely defended against what I may have regarded as absolutist attitudes toward a sticky issue. The only difference I see now between your view and mine is that your limits as to what is permissible are stricter. Would you agree? Phew, I need to take a leaf out of .,,'s guide to brevity. Bear with me, I'll get there.


----------



## gaer

. said:


> G'day lfeat,
> I know that your heart is in the right place but your example is just too funny. You have to look at it symbolically as the child probably would and the cat definitely will.
> You will confuse the child if it is too young to reason with by interfering in a self correcting cycle.
> 
> If you stop the child by hitting it you will cause the child to associate pleasure with hurting the cat and pain with being caught by the parent. This is a road to gaol.
> If you tell the child that kitty will bight and scratch if you are cruel a very short sharp lesson from the rule book of fang and claw will allow the kitty to tell the child what is unacceptable behaviour and you will be the wise consolling hug saying that next time you had better listen when I tell you something.


Let's forget about possible situations. Let's talk reality.

This happened recently. Our Siamese cat, 23 years old, blind, was nearly at the end of her life.

My grandson (three) decided that it was perfectly okay to hit the cat. We had no place to put the cat away from the dhild that worked—small apartment.

I said, "Cocoa is very old old, and she can't see. Don't hit her. Pet her gently."

My grandson hit her again.

I grabbed him, in front of "Mommy and Daddy", and said: "This is my house. If you hit the cat again, I'm going to hit you. Get it?"

He didn't hit the cat again. I don't CARE if his little ego was bruised. If he is just scared enough of me to know that when I say "NO" I mean it, right now that's good enough.

When he gets a bit older, I'll stick to reason.

When I was very young, I knew that my mother and father had limits. I knew, for instance, the if my mother said, "Come here!" and I chose to run the other way, I was going to get a good wack on the butt.

If a child knows that "no" means "no", it can save his life. If he decides to run toward a street when you have just said, "Don't do that," you can pat yourself on the back for never having "laid a hand on him" as he is run over by a truck.

Gaer


----------



## GEmatt

> Let's talk reality.


Good point, gaer. Sometimes I think there's more of a rift between the theory and the reality than there is between the different theories themselves.





> If a child knows that "no" means "no", it can save his life. If he decides to run toward a street when you have just said, "Don't do that," you can pat yourself on the back for never having "laid a hand on him" as he is run over by a truck.


Exactly. But, gaer, this is only when faced with an imminent threat, for the child's own good (or survival, potentially), and where you might not have time to try non-physical methods of restraint. It may prevent the child from running into the street again, but somehow... what about something like this? See? Smiling faces all around, and no risk of grievous consequences...


----------



## fenixpollo

GEmatt said:


> I don't understand the notion of degrees of violence not being "justifiable", intrinsically. Not "acceptable", yes, as violence generally is.
> If I give my young one a milder-than-mild swat (less than a swat, more than a tap, let's say), I can say that I did not administer a heavier swat, because anything harsher would have been neither necessary nor justifiable (assuming the swat had its effect); I've justified my degree of violence. I may be misunderstanding your definition of "justifiable", based on my reading of your post(s).


 If you are justifying your level of violence, that means that to you, that level of violence is acceptable. That which can be justified or rationalized, is therefore accepted. 

I'm not saying that a swat on the rear is unjustifiable violence; I'm saying that abusive parents also justify or rationalize their abusive behavior with the same words that you use to justify your little swat. My intention is not to demonize the swatters, but to demonize the abusers. The problem that you and I are having is this: where do you draw the line between them?


> As for my personal view, I'm more intent on a real-life solution (having worked with youngsters and seen first-hand the physical signs of abuse), and am ultimately happy to let logical consistency go out the window, if I don't feel it's contributing toward making a difference.


I can't argue with that.


----------



## GEmatt

> If you are justifying your level of violence, that means that to you, that level of violence is acceptable. That which can be justified or rationalized, is therefore accepted.


Ok, I think I see now.





> I'm not saying that a swat on the rear is unjustifiable violence; I'm saying that abusive parents also justify or rationalize their abusive behavior with the same words that you use to justify your little swat.


Perhaps my perceptions of "abusive" are overly stereotypical. Alright then: let's say some of them do, yes.





> My intention is not to demonize the swatters, but to demonize the abusers. The problem that you and I are having is this: where do you draw the line between them?


Ok. I had taken you as demonizing across the board, which is why I was confused. Demonize the abusers, sure .

Where the problem is such that a disadvantaged 3rd party is at real risk, but that, for all the subjective reasons mentioned, no line can be drawn, ie the problem cannot be defined clearly enough to be solved in a proportionate way, it would be better to denounce and stamp out wholesale whatever is posing the risk, than to be complacent and potentially allow abuse to continue. _In theory._

It _is_ a catch-22, though, and scorched earth doesn't sit well with real people. I'd say that drawing a line between them isn't really feasible, after all, but that with time and education, people will turn away from "the rod". I don't think I could swat, and hope I won't; my parents gave me the hand, though, and their parents in turn belted and caned them. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how my great-grandparents disciplined my grandparents.


----------



## .   1

Gaer,
I will respond with a personal anecdote but first I must comment that your personal story did not contain physical violence and if the cat was not old and blind you may not have felt compelled to intervene.
I have tapped my daughter's hand once and tapped her bottom once and I have explained those events to her as my mistakes.  I have yelled at her in frustration but I always speak with her and appologise immediately afterwards.  My daughter never flinches from my hand or fails to report her own mistakes to me because we have told her repeatedly that she will not be punished for her errors but that we as parents will fix the problem.  I have in turn frozen my daughter with a word (as I dealt with a savage dog) and put her to her heels with an expression (too close to sandflies) and I am confident that she will always follow my lead because she does not fear or resent me.

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

GEmatt said:


> ...it would be better to denounce and stamp out wholesale whatever is posing the risk, than to be complacent and potentially allow abuse to continue. _In theory._
> 
> It _is_ a catch-22, though, and scorched earth doesn't sit well with real people.


 It's not a "scorched earth" point of view, but the exact opposite... call it an "unscorched earth" or "unscorched bottoms" policy. 

If it's the right thing to do _in theory_, then we should do it _in reality_. We should work to solve our problems, not accept them as just "the way the world works". If we did, nothing would ever change.


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Gaer,
> I will respond with a personal anecdote but first I must comment that your personal story did not contain physical violence and if the cat was not old and blind you may not have felt compelled to intervene.


Well, there was potential "mild violence". I was quite prepared to slap my grandson's hand, though I can tell you that he considers it more an insult than pain. I also want to point out that when our cat, now dead, was younger and healthier, she might have bitten him or scratched him. There is no easy way to teach children that lesson.

I also should admit that I avoid not only violence but force of any kind, whenever possible. 


> I have tapped my daughter's hand once and tapped her bottom once and I have explained those events to her as my mistakes. I have yelled at her in frustration but I always speak with her and appologise immediately afterwards. My daughter never flinches from my hand or fails to report her own mistakes to me because we have told her repeatedly that she will not be punished for her errors but that we as parents will fix the problem. I have in turn frozen my daughter with a word (as I dealt with a savage dog) and put her to her heels with an expression (too close to sandflies) and I am confident that she will always follow my lead because she does not fear or resent me.


We are pretty close, I think. There is a very fine line between respect and fear. When children obey us because they fear us, there will always be "hell to pay" later on, although we can never predict exactly how it will "play out".

I think my only point was that we have to find some way to stop small children from disobeying us in ways that could be harmful, even life-threatening. What is the right way to do this? I believe it is very complicated, because reaction to any kind of discipline or structure differs so tremendously from child to child.

Gaer


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> It's not a "scorched earth" point of view, but the exact opposite... call it an "unscorched earth" or "unscorched bottoms" policy.


 
Oh my... "unscorched bottoms"... have we come to that? 



> If it's the right thing to do _in theory_, then we should do it _in reality_. We should work to solve our problems, not accept them as just "the way the world works". If we did, nothing would ever change.


 
 Yessir. But also, I think we should let the remedial actions we take be guided by those theories, and not just implement what we think, outright. That aside, I'd say it's a "scorched earth policy" that _leads_ to "unscorched bottoms" ... and of course, I could go on about how it depends on whether the buttocks are "scorched", or merely "lightly toasted", but I take your point, and think you take mine (if I've finally managed to express myself clearly enough).

Apart from relativizing the use of corporal punishment, people here - myself included - have relativized what it's like to be on the receiving end. But I doubt anyone would specifically ask to grow up in a swatting environment, given the choice (I know I wouldn't). Their buttocks would thank them for it..

I guess when he said _"thou shalt beat the child / And thou shalt deliver his soul from hell,"_ the almighty wasn't thinking about public policy, custody battles and broken families. But that's for another thread


----------



## Selena1967

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> you guys are totally misunderstanding the whole thing!! That is what happens when a) we take things out of context and, b) we forget about balance.


 



			
				Venezuelan_sweetie said:
			
		

> Some parents I have met have never "put a finger" on their children, but they have also been extremely permissive and let them behave any way they want, even if that involves messing up with other people, disturbing peace, disrespecting moral values and becoming a problem to our society. Shall I take that *EVERY* parent that doesn't share my view on the matter is just like those ones? Shall I believe that not using physical discipline necessarily leads children to that sort of behaviour? Of course *not*! That would make me a narrow-minded foolish person who cannot see beyond her nose!


 



			
				Venezuelan_sweetie=If what you guys have seen (with or without proves to back it up) is that parents who give [B said:
			
		

> _an ocassional smack on the rear_[/b] to their kids are sick and abusive, or you simply choose to think that way, seeing it or not, that is your problem. My advice, leave prejudices aside next time you look around.


 
If I've not misunderstood your words, you are saying that the term "discipline" is similar to using physical punishment on children as "smart and occasional dosis of smacks" when your kids are not being reasonable enough.

It doesn't make sense to me how you are trying to argue for this practice when you are unable to make them understand your point of view even being awared that they don't have enough criteria to 'act' as an adult. Who is being unreasonable in this case?

So it is perfectly assumed for you, and for the rest of the World, to understand what it might cause an unreasonable adult behaviour not to smack them 10 but it's totally justified for your kids? 

I think there's a quite common misconception between putting into practice discipline strategies for kids and arguing for their physical abuse. There's nothing reasonable in using violence against a defenseless human being and even much more when they are not mature enough to understand that this is an emotional response (fear, tiredness, disappointment....) for our inhability to be enough respected in our authority.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

My dear Selena... I don't know if you are into spiritism or what, but you just have awaken somebody from the furthermore... or at least, much "more further" than this thread I was stuck on for quite a while... 

Alright, let's pray whatever deity you like this gets to be my final post in this thread.

1) I'm not trying to argue for any practice at all. I noticed this interesting thread and wanted to add my 2 cents by sharing my view, since I've been in both ends of the "raised hand". Whether people think of me as an advocate of a specific disciplinary mean or not is up to each of them, but I must say that is not what I'm up to. The reason why I kept on posting (and posting, and posting, and posting, and... well, I think you got the point) is because some were kind of saying that their point of view is the only valid, which really p*ssed me off! Something I just cannot take is absolutism, narrow-mindness and judgements. Can't we see those are bound to our own context, and they do not apply that freely to every person?

2) I have set this very clear and I cannot believe I keep on receiving this kind of feedback, but here I repeat it once more: I consider such choices a personal matter *in most cases* (check the very post you quoted, and see the bottomline, and complement it with the other ones I've posted . Seems like nobody does...). I cannot say you ("you" as in generally speaking, OK?) should spank your child or not, I cannot say every parent should consider it or just ban it, just based upon my own context-limited experience and point of view. That's what makes a culture culture! And even if we shared that context (which we don't), I still couldn't tell you what is right or wrong for you in my view. So could you please be so kind as to GET OFF MY *@/+$ BACK!?!?! Thank you guys, I'd really appreciate it...

3) Discipline is discipline. Spanking is spanking. Some people include spanking in their discipline, or reinforce discipline with spanking (or spoil it with spanking, according to some). I never said discipline is just spanking, or spanking is always linked to discipline. Please, read all my posts again and see my real point of view on the matter.

4) I have never talked about the "authority" issue as this is a 'touchy' thing, so please don't suggest that's what I meant.

*If you OR ANYONE ELSE has something to say about my words, please do so through PM since I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I'm already sick of all this absolutism floating in the air...*

Have a nice day, everybody.


----------



## .   1

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> So could you please be so kind as to GET OFF MY *@/+$ BACK!?!?! Thank you guys, I'd really appreciate it...
> *If you OR ANYONE ELSE has something to say about my words, please do so through PM since I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I'm already sick of all this absolutism floating in the air...*
> 
> Have a nice day, everybody.


I can not perceive where anybody is on your *@/+$ BACK!?!?! and *mindless YELLING* never convinced me to do anything.  I think that you take this subject far more seriously than you think and I suspect that you have been marked by your experiences far more deeply than you realise.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I can not perceive where anybody is on your *@/+$ BACK!?!?! and *mindless YELLING* never convinced me to do anything.  I think that you take this subject far more seriously than you think and I suspect that you have been marked by your experiences far more deeply than you realise.
> 
> .,,



echo.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

. said:


> I think that you take this subject far more seriously than you think and I suspect that you have been marked by your experiences far more deeply than you realise.


 
I was sure you both would have something to say...  Now you did, so if you have any further comment, go ahead and shoot me to death through PMs.

What "marked me seriously and deeply" is not anything directly related to the topic.  It's more related to being judged, and bombarded with absolute concepts that drown and choke other people's ideas.

I am a freedom lover, I believe people have the right to express themselves with as least judgement and criticism possible, and whenever something blatantly wrong or definitely harmful is said, then there are other strategies than just dropping judgements all around (which, by the way, never helps at all).

Wanna tell me something more?  Wanna ask me anything?  Wanna judge, wanna know, wanna discuss anything (whether in a narrow or open minded way, it's your choice anyway)?  Let's do so, but this thread is already worn out, and the longer it lasts, the more pshychobabble I hear.

Have a good evening, guys, and enjoy yourselves with your phylossophy.


----------



## badgrammar

I defend, although it's silly to have to, Venezuala's position, and feel she has expressed her personal beliefs well and succinctly without judging anyone.  And yes, people have been all over her back in this thread because she expresses a minority opinion.  

She never said she was in favor of "smacking" children or anything of the sort.  She put herself out on a limb by expressing ideas that fly in the face of what many think.  Other foreros, such as the honorable Elaine, exressed the same ideas, nobody got on her case.  

Give her a break... unless you just don't really want to hear how others think, you'd rather just berate and shame them into no longer expressing their contradicting views.  

This is a cultural forum.  It's about listening to others' views.  

Well, I guess that will teach her to dare to voice her opinions and personal experience!  Gotta' love that democratic spirit, folks!


----------



## badgrammar

Just a side note - sometimes we all get so bogged down with this "cultural forum" that we forget what brought us here...  Wanna' write something?  Let's all go answer one question in a language forum for each post we write in the cultural forum.  There are lots of places to debate stuff, this is first and foremost a language-based forum.

Bye!


----------



## Benjy

This thread is closed for the moment. I just got in from work and am very tired and am going to bed. Some one else may or may not be along shortly to try and reign this thread back in or let it rest in peace.

Thank you for you patience and understanding


----------

