Teen attacks parents with knives after they take her cell phone

[flyersfan31]

You are contridicting yourself...you say violence works, but then say it doesn't. I'm confused.

No, not at all. I was using the example of Stalin. He used violence. It kept the people in line, at the expense of the folks living in abject terror for their lives. Not a great approach, IMHO.

Slap, spank, swat - call it what you will. It's still hitting. Why do you want your child to fear you, even temporarily? That's nuts. That's bullying, not disciplining. Slapping is violence, not discipline. Discipline is laying out the rules, reasonable rules, and providing reasonable ramifications. Violence begets violence. I'll say it again - resorting to violence against a child is proof that you have no ideas left. It is lazy. 'I can't be bothered to teach the kid what's right, so I'll just whack him.' It should NEVER have to get to that point.

Do you really want to see fear in your child's eyes? Really?

I'm no namby-pamby liberal wuss. I do have two extremely well-behaved kids who have never felt the lash, nor will they ever do so. I like kids. Adults, not so much.

 

[rottydaddy]

Somehow, I would not have assumed that this child grew up in a non-violent home.

It doesn't have to be a violent home, IMHO... just one where anger isn't dealt with in a healthy way, and where discipline isn't consistent, fair, and understood.

 

[TMetzinger]

When I was in public school in Kentucky, we had corporal punishment. But it was a formal punishment, delivered (normally by the choice of the student rather than write pages or something else) only after a process like a hearing, and then it was formally administered with a witness.

I don't believe in (and never have) hitting a child in anger. But I believe a spanking when done as a formal punishment is not necessarily bad.

But the key word here is BELIEVE. How a parent raises a child is an intensely personal decision, as private and as resistant to external pressure as any religious faith. And I believe that societies/governments need to respect that, and only step in when a certain envelope of behavior is exceeded. I can't legally define the point where "abuse" starts, but I know it when I see it, and I would bet that it's reasonably congruent to the majority of the rest of you.

 

[Henning]

Do you have a lot of psychotic 16 year olds down there?

Can you tell me where they aren't?

 

[fgcason]

The kind of fear you don't want to cause is the kind where the kid remains afraid of you AFTER the punishment. We always make the point that the incident is over after the punishment.

I believe we're in agreement. That's how we were treated, that's how people such as me with kids do their kids that are turning out much the way we have.

Nitpicking every type of definiable fear, implied or actual, out of the equation and outlawing it often results in lack of respect and decent behavior. The fear of such things as the switch isn't that it's brutal or going to cause mental problems for the next 50 years. It's a case of that thing stings and it's a total non-event 10 minutes after the fact as long as one doesn't do anything to deserve it again. It's a tool, not a weapon.

Curiously I find that dogs tend to have very similar learning pattern as kids. The effective disciplinary techniques about the same too. Seriously. Think about it.

*"a good one" meant "little knobby spots and such" on it. I think I can still feel the welts... cause that switch wasn't always used on the buttocks, but the back of the legs, too.

You and I must be related.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ten Seconds

And if you were in public you got shaken. That was just a down payment on the switch.

Never, ever shake a child. Even when they deserve it. My grandson was one week from his second birthday when he was shaken. His Mom had left Dad six months earlier and hid the child, refusing to let Dad even see him. The courts would have none of it and awarded custody to Dad who then wouldn't let Mom see the child. In - between was a little child who had no idea when would be the last time he would see either of his parents. He would cling like a cocklebur on a sock to either one.

One fall day, Dad decided to sell the huge mower he used to mow highway edges so that he could get enough money to move into a house instead of his tiny 2 room apartment that he shared with his son and his girlfriend. He told my grandson that he would be back in less than 1/2 hour. But, what does that mean to a nearly-two-year-old? The boy cried and screamed and beat on the door while the girlfriend did her best to cope with him and a pounding headache. He didn't stop. He threw things and screamed in his rage and fear that he would never see Dad again in his life.

The girlfriend grabbed him and shook him. He screamed louder. She shook harder and yelled at him to quit. According to the Medical Examiner, within five seconds, he had gone blind in one eye when his retina detached. Within those five seconds, his soft brain banged forward and backward inside his skull, bruising and swelling to the point that this bright, gifted child who was already learning to read would never be able to pass sixth grade. But that tragedy was averted. He continued to shriek even shriller. The girlfriend shook him another five seconds until his battered brain was firing erratically and he fell to the ground in a seizure.

My grandson's Dad arrived just a moment after the ambulance. He had in his pocket enough money for a down-payment on a house for his family. But he didn't need it. My grandson was buried on his second birthday. His girlfriend went to prison.

Ten seconds.

 

[flyersfan31]

My parents shook me, and I turned out ok.

That is a horrible, tragic tale. Horrible. I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child.

 

[AuntPeggy]

My parents shook me, and I turned out ok.

It's hard to look at these words and the face of Stalin at the same time without shaking my head.

That is a horrible, tragic tale. Horrible. I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child.

Thanks.

 

[silver-eagle]

I don't think anyone is advocating physical abuse. More to the point, they are all advocating the same thing, limits with known penalties. Start early with whatever method you want and you'll see compliance to the rules and bounds you've set.
Children do not fear their parents if they are treated fairly. What they fear is the punishment and rightly so. Put another way, what do WE fear as adults? Why aren't we all lawless? PUNISHMENT. We know there is a real consequence to what we do, monetarily or physically, so we do not break the rules.
What's happened to our children is too many parents and children believe the nonsense about "child abuse". Punishment is one thing, abuse is entirely different. As parents and adults, we need to know the difference.

 

[flyersfan31]

I don't think anyone is advocating physical abuse. More to the point, they are all advocating the same thing, limits with known penalties. Start early with whatever method you want and you'll see compliance to the rules and bounds you've set.
Children do not fear their parents if they are treated fairly. What they fear is the punishment and rightly so. Put another way, what do WE fear as adults? Why aren't we all lawless? PUNISHMENT. We know there is a real consequence to what we do, monetarily or physically, so we do not break the rules.
What's happened to our children is too many parents and children believe the nonsense about "child abuse". Punishment is one thing, abuse is entirely different. As parents and adults, we need to know the difference.

But if you can do it, as you say, limits with known penalties but without violence, without hitting - WHY HIT?? That is my point. You do not need to hit in order to instill good behavior and compliance.

Put it another way - if you keep your kid in line with violence, what happens when he grows bigger than you? It's a house of cards.

 

[fgcason]

But if you can do it, as you say, limits with known penalties but without violence, without hitting - WHY HIT?? That is my point. You do not need to hit in order to instill good behavior and compliance.

There's a big difference between violence and getting a kids attention or demonstrating consequence of actions. Physical whacks is merely a tool to be used carefully and in moderation while teaching the kid to listen to reason. If done properly, the switch is something to avoid, not fear.

A screaming 3 year old in a store typically doesn't listen to reason. He's not really at an age where reason is the predominant learning method when emotion takes over. A swat across the rear simply gets his attention so his brain will reengage for discussion.

An out of control kid deliberately busts a glass antique and he won't see a reason and will do it again in an hour later. A switch will indicate to him that there are direct consequences for his actions since he won't listen to reason.


FWIW: I never feared the switch or my parents at all even while they were holding the switch up to my nose..but you can bet everything you have that I did whatever was necessary, up to and including calm rational discussion, to not have that thing put to my backside. I knew, and they made it extremely clear to me, that if I got swatted or had to pick myself up off the ground, it was completely self inflicted and I had been given plenty of options and time to avoid the situation in the first place...then did something incredibly stupid to deserve it.

But what do I know? We got swatted plenty of times and was expected to stay in line and behave. We all turned out pretty good. The kid down the street never got swatted or disciplined anywhere near like we did for his actions. He was STILL in prison last I heard.

 

[flyersfan31]

A screaming 3 year old in a store typically doesn't listen to reason. He's not really at an age where reason is the predominant learning method when emotion takes over. A swat across the rear simply gets his attention so his brain will reengage for discussion.

A screaming 3 yr old in a store should be taken out of the store. Figure out why they're screaming. You're right -- there is no reasoning with them. You need to fix the problem. Presumably you've explained to them before hand that any misbehavior means going home immediately; perhaps a loss of a stuffed animal or something. If they do act up, boom, follow through on the punishment. Fair, and consistent. Smacking just papers over the problem - they figure out they need to be quiet to get the pain to go away. I don't like to treat my kids like lab rats.

I know, I know, I keep harping on this. Why won't I drop it? Most of the pro-swat club is probably sick of it. You say you turned out just fine. Is that because of the swats, or in spite of them? I would argue the latter. I am routinely complimented on the behavior of my kids in public. Is it because I'm the greatest, smartest, most capable parent on the planet. Sadly, no.. Positive discipline works, and is worth trying. Hitting, no matter how delicately, still teaches only one lesson: might makes right. And that ain't right.

Please. Think about it.

 

[Ted]

The kid down the street never got swatted or disciplined anywhere near like we did for his actions. He was STILL in prison last I heard.

Words in bold are the key there. Discipline is the issue, and there are multiple ways to enforce discipline.

 

[silver-eagle]

But if you can do it, as you say, limits with known penalties but without violence, without hitting - WHY HIT?? That is my point. You do not need to hit in order to instill good behavior and compliance.

Put it another way - if you keep your kid in line with violence, what happens when he grows bigger than you? It's a house of cards.

It's YOUR view that all forms of physical discipline is violence. Lots of people were raised on physical discipline without adverse affect. We're not all homicidal maniacs nor do we feel VIOLENCE is right and proper. And do note there is a difference between physical discipline and VIOLENCE.
Think of it another way, there are times when diplomacy will not work. Do you toss in the towel or do you escalate. If so, to what degree. Something HAS to be done and diplomacy and negotiation just isn't working.
When you're faced with that situation, you can come back and tell me how wonderful your negotiation skills are.

 

[flyersfan31]

It's YOUR view that all forms of physical discipline is violence. Lots of people were raised on physical discipline without adverse affect. We're not all homicidal maniacs nor do we feel VIOLENCE is right and proper. And do note there is a difference between physical discipline and VIOLENCE.
Think of it another way, there are times when diplomacy will not work. Do you toss in the towel or do you escalate. If so, to what degree. Something HAS to be done and diplomacy and negotiation just isn't working.
When you're faced with that situation, you can come back and tell me how wonderful your negotiation skills are.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

We are talking about our kids here, aren't we??????

 

[AuntPeggy]

And do note there is a difference between physical discipline and VIOLENCE.

No, there isn't.

When you hit a child, what are you saying? "I'm bigger than you." "I'm righter than you." "You are weaker than me." "I'm not listening to you." "What you are trying to communicate doesn't matter."

Why is the 3-year-old throwing a fit in the store? Is it way past naptime? Are they hungry? Are they frightened? Are they selfish, greedy? Are they after attention? Are they frustrated? Do they need a break from crowds? Do they need to burn off some energy? Are they just spoiled rotten?

What is a 16-year-old trying to say? All the above? Plus a few more come to mind. "I've been raped and all you hear is I won't eat breakfast." "My best friend is trying to commit suicide." "I don't understand algebra." "I'm really confused about something." You can think of others if you try.

 

[flyersfan31]

No, there isn't.

When you hit a child, what are you saying? "I'm bigger than you." "I'm righter than you." "You are weaker than me." "I'm not listening to you." "What you are trying to communicate doesn't matter."

Why is the 3-year-old throwing a fit in the store? Is it way past naptime? Are they hungry? Are they frightened? Are they selfish, greedy? Are they after attention? Are they frustrated? Do they need a break from crowds? Do they need to burn off some energy? Are they just spoiled rotten?

What is a 16-year-old trying to say? All the above? Plus a few more come to mind. "I've been raped and all you hear is I won't eat breakfast." "My best friend is trying to commit suicide." "I don't understand algebra." "I'm really confused about something." You can think of others if you try.

Thank you!

 

[SkyHog]

No, there isn't.

When you hit a child, what are you saying? "I'm bigger than you." "I'm righter than you." "You are weaker than me." "I'm not listening to you." "What you are trying to communicate doesn't matter."

not at all. when my father spanked me, he always made me tell him why i was being spanked, and i understood it was discipline for being bad. i never thought "my dad is spanking me beacause he's violent and doesnt care what i think."

Why is the 3-year-old throwing a fit in the store? Is it way past naptime? Are they hungry? Are they frightened? Are they selfish, greedy? Are they after attention? Are they frustrated? Do they need a break from crowds? Do they need to burn off some energy? Are they just spoiled rotten?

or maybe because they know the worst that will happen if they act up is they'll be talkedto so hard they'll never forget it. im being a smartass because i was old enough to remember my punishment and i NEVER felt the way y'all insinuate i should have felt.

What is a 16-year-old trying to say? All the above? Plus a few more come to mind. "I've been raped and all you hear is I won't eat breakfast." "My best friend is trying to commit suicide." "I don't understand algebra." "I'm really confused about something." You can think of others if you try.

i was not spanked at 16 anymore because thatd be weird, but the benefit of being 16 is that you can actually see real consequences for misbehaving. if they need help, they need to vocalize it. i believe the reason i did and still do have such a strong relationship with my father is because he was not afraid to set me straight when i needed it. that means when i was in trouble, or my friends were, i could talk to him. i dont know that id have felt that way if he was one of those "never fix problems" parents you guys are describing. and lets not joke here: if you use timeout in lieu of punishment (and timeouts/positive reinforcement is not punishment) you are one of those. your kids might turn out ok, or they might more likely be like some of my friends who still arent right socially at near 30 years old

 

[flyersfan31]

i dont know that id have felt that way if he was one of those "never fix problems" parents you guys are describing. and lets not joke here: if you use timeout in lieu of punishment (and timeouts/positive reinforcement is not punishment) you are one of those. your kids might turn out ok, or they might more likely be like some of my friends who still arent right socially at near 30 years old

I don't believe you are following us. I have neither said nor implied that one should not fix the problem. I have stated that such problems can be fixed without resorting to hitting. Using pain for conditioning behavioral responses is something you do to animals, not people.

My kids know that if they act up, they lose something valuable to them. We call them privileges. Their cherished animal. Cuddle time at bedtime. The trip to the park. The key, as a parent, is knowing their hot buttons and pushing them, rather than going to the whip. Moreover, once warned, the threat must be carried through. I tell them if they act up in the restaurant, no dessert (the only time they get one), and if they continue to do so we leave. Usually the loss of dessert gets them, but if they're tired and cranky guess what? We leave. Period. Usually results in more screams once we're in the car, but they never make the same result.

I'm not a big fan of timeouts - they don't teach much, unless used situationally and very sparingly. That is, if something really fun is going on, a timeout is going to teach a valuable lesson because they lose out on something they really want. Most folks who give their kids timeouts have no idea what they're doing, they just tell the kid to go in the corner. Kids don't learn from that.

If I make a fuss, I don't get to sleep with my treasured teddy bear: CONSEQUENCE = I lose something I want very badly

If I make a fuss, my dad is going to hit me: CONSEQUENCE = FEAR and pain.

I don't want my kids to fear me. I'm their father, not a monster.

I know your dad hit you. I know you still love him. Love runs very deep in a child. Just because your dad hit you doesn't mean it was right. Think of how you felt? Scared? Hurt? Remorseful? The first two emotions really do nothing to solve the situation.

Hitting is a shortcut. It is not a solution. Might does not make right. I'm reading all sorts of fine distinctions made between "violence" and "punishment" and "hitting" and "slapping" or "swatting." You can torture the words and squeeze out justification but in the end, it's all the same.

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't believe you are following us. I have neither said nor implied that one should not fix the problem. I have stated that such problems can be fixed without resorting to hitting. Using pain for conditioning behavioral responses is something you do to animals, not people.

My kids know that if they act up, they lose something valuable to them. We call them privileges. Their cherished animal. Cuddle time at bedtime. The trip to the park. The key, as a parent, is knowing their hot buttons and pushing them, rather than going to the whip. Moreover, once warned, the threat must be carried through. I tell them if they act up in the restaurant, no dessert (the only time they get one), and if they continue to do so we leave. Usually the loss of dessert gets them, but if they're tired and cranky guess what? We leave. Period. Usually results in more screams once we're in the car, but they never make the same result.

I'm not a big fan of timeouts - they don't teach much, unless used situationally and very sparingly. That is, if something really fun is going on, a timeout is going to teach a valuable lesson because they lose out on something they really want. Most folks who give their kids timeouts have no idea what they're doing, they just tell the kid to go in the corner. Kids don't learn from that.

If I make a fuss, I don't get to sleep with my treasured teddy bear: CONSEQUENCE = I lose something I want very badly

If I make a fuss, my dad is going to hit me: CONSEQUENCE = FEAR and pain.

I don't want my kids to fear me. I'm their father, not a monster.

I know your dad hit you. I know you still love him. Love runs very deep in a child. Just because your dad hit you doesn't mean it was right. Think of how you felt? Scared? Hurt? Remorseful? The first two emotions really do nothing to solve the situation.

Hitting is a shortcut. It is not a solution. Might does not make right. I'm reading all sorts of fine distinctions made between "violence" and "punishment" and "hitting" and "slapping" or "swatting." You can torture the words and squeeze out justification but in the end, it's all the same.

One problem I see with your method is that the consequence is distant in time from the event that precipitated it. This would seem to lessen the desired association in the child's mind. A swat on the behind, on the other hand, is proximate, so the association is there.

Another problem I see is with very young kids who don't have the reasoning skills yet to understand an argument, but who can understand pain. How do you deal with disciplining them, especially to not do things that might be dangerous, such as touching a hot stove. Obviously kids that age must be supervised, but you also want them to be as prepared as possible for those times when they may be inadvertently unsupervised.

When you talk about withholding something the child wants as punishment, I understand you to mean non-essentials. Specifically not needed food, shelter, or affection. I mention "needed", because I would expect that withholding dessert or something similar would be considered legitimate and effective. I mention this just to double-check what I think I hear you saying.

Note that I'm asking these as real questions, not because I know the answer, one way or the other. I've been a kid (and sometimes I still act like I am ), but I don't have any, so have little personal experience in this.

 

[flyersfan31]

One problem I see with your method is that the consequence is distant in time from the event that precipitated it. This would seem to lessen the desired association in the child's mind.

A valid point. I'm trying to keep my response to a reasonable length. I'm giving quick examples - clearly whatever my consequence is must meet the timeliness restriction.

A swat on the behind, on the other hand, is proximate, so the association is there.

But, as I say, there are better things to do than to use pain conditioning.

Another problem I see is with very young kids who don't have the reasoning skills yet to understand an argument, but who can understand pain. How do you deal with disciplining them, especially to not do things that might be dangerous, such as touching a hot stove. Obviously kids that age must be supervised, but you also want them to be as prepared as possible for those times when they may be inadvertently unsupervised.

You don't reason with them. It can be nonverbal. Touch the outlet, get moved away. Touch it again, move them again. Touch it again, move to another room without toys. Thing is - you have to be consistent (and, as you say, timely). Never get into a discussion with them. Lay it out and move on.

When you talk about withholding something the child wants as punishment, I understand you to mean non-essentials. Specifically not needed food, shelter, or affection. I mention "needed", because I would expect that withholding desert or something similar would be considered legitimate and effective. I mention this just to double-check what I think I hear you saying.

God no! Again, I'm space constrained, but no, no, no, nothing like that. Something they want, not something they need. Withholding food? Kicking them out of the house? No! Hell no! Hey, here's the thing - they need love, and hitting is not giving them love. So, another little proof of my philosophy.

 

[SkyHog]

I don't believe you are following us. I have neither said nor implied that one should not fix the problem. I have stated that such problems can be fixed without resorting to hitting. Using pain for conditioning behavioral responses is something you do to animals, not people.

You're missing mine. I grew up getting swatted for acting bad, and I respect my father. Your fight has been that fear != respect, and that's the problem. Also - I do not hit my dog, because he doesn't understand why I'm hitting him, so you're wrong: Pain conditions children, not animals.

I don't have kids, but that's ok, I remember being punished as a kid, and I never felt that my father was abusive nor did I feel that my father was to be feared, not respected. So that ends your argument: Children need to be swatted when they misbehave. To not immediately correct is to not discipline at all. So no, I get your point, and I understand why you say that.

But you're wrong.

My kids know that if they act up, they lose something valuable to them. We call them privileges. Their cherished animal. Cuddle time at bedtime. The trip to the park. The key, as a parent, is knowing their hot buttons and pushing them, rather than going to the whip. Moreover, once warned, the threat must be carried through. I tell them if they act up in the restaurant, no dessert (the only time they get one), and if they continue to do so we leave. Usually the loss of dessert gets them, but if they're tired and cranky guess what? We leave. Period. Usually results in more screams once we're in the car, but they never make the same result.

See, for me, the easy solution was to shut my mouth right away, or I'd be spanked and lose dessert. It only takes one or two mistakes to learn that one. I see other parents that try your technique, and unfortuantely, I'm the one that has to sit there listening to their kids scream their heads off in a nice restaurant because they're trying to reason with them.

Kid: BLAFGHHGHDDGDGDGDGHDGDGDh
Parent: Shhh, now, if you don't be quiet, no desert
Kid: NO DESSERT??? BLEAGFDKJHSDFGSDFASD THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!
Parent: Stop it now, Junior, or you go to time out
Kid: YOU DON'T LOVE ME! BLASDFKJHASFDAS
ad nauseum for the next hour and a half, while I sit there listening to it

vs.

Kid: LKASDF:LASDFLASKJASF
Parent: Knock it off
Kid: Blasdgghsdgadsasdg
Parent: *SWAT* stop it now.
Kid: *sniff...sniff*

If I make a fuss, my dad is going to hit me: CONSEQUENCE = FEAR and pain.

I don't want my kids to fear me. I'm their father, not a monster.

Absolutely ridiculous comments, and I'd like you notice that I am seeing you calling my father a monster and I don't appreciate it. My father is respected, the way a father should be. You are incapable of differentiating from "punching" and "spanking" and that's typical of today's parents.

I know your dad hit you. I know you still love him. Love runs very deep in a child. Just because your dad hit you doesn't mean it was right. Think of how you felt? Scared? Hurt? Remorseful? The first two emotions really do nothing to solve the situation.

I'd say the response was "Oh ****, I better not that again." Then, a few minutes later, after my butt stopped stinging, I'd do whatever I was doing, but do it correctly.

Hitting is a shortcut. It is not a solution. Might does not make right. I'm reading all sorts of fine distinctions made between "violence" and "punishment" and "hitting" and "slapping" or "swatting." You can torture the words and squeeze out justification but in the end, it's all the same.

Well, you can call a fly an airplane because its in the air, but that doesn't make it right, it reeks of delusions of grandeur, and that's basically what you're doing.

So, all this said, if I ever see a kid punched, or even injured by a parent by overzealous physicality, I'll be the first to call them a monster. FWIW, I do, however, see your style of parenting ruining my quality of life. It may be working for you, but if it is, you're lucky, and most parents aren't as lucky.

 

[fgcason]

.....

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Yeah, I pay my own cell phone bill (well the data plan at least) and need my phone for work. But if my parents took it away, I'd probably be slightly relieved that I had an excuse for not getting back to people in a timely manner, what a relief.

That said, I probably wouldn't attack them with knives them like this kid did ... that's just stupid.

How hard is it to really grasp such simple common sense concepts? Perhaps my early maturity is clouding the way I see such violent and faithless acts in teens today.

 

[flyersfan31]

So, all this said, if I ever see a kid punched, or even injured by a parent by overzealous physicality, I'll be the first to call them a monster. FWIW, I do, however, see your style of parenting ruining my quality of life. It may be working for you, but if it is, you're lucky, and most parents aren't as lucky.

Not lucky. Smart. I agree with you - I get ****ed when I have to sit next to parents who say "stop or no dessert." WAAAAH "I'm warning you." WAAH "Last chance." WAAAAH. "Stop It"

Where's the consequence? Nowhere. Leave the restaurant. Then and there. Booom. You're done.

Parents who don't understand how to EFFECTIVELY use positive discipline (sorry for the split infinitive) make things even worse. In a sense, bad discipline is as bad as none at all. In your world, you smack the kid and they stop. At least they stop. The "time out" folks and the "One more time and..." folks never stop it. In that sense, I understand your frustration.

STILL, and again, you DO NOT have to hit to communicate the message. I am not "lucky" to be graced with good kids. It takes work. More than most parents want to put into it. Whether through hitting or ignoring, they'd rather take the easy way. As the late Toronto Maple Leafs defenceman Tim Horton used to say, "The hard way is the easy way."

READ THE BOOK.

http://www.amazon.com/Positive-Disc...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233285497&sr=8-1

Heck, Nick. PM me your address and I'll send you a copy. If I can stop one parent (future or otherwise) from hitting their kid, the money is worth it.

 

[flyersfan31]

.....

Dude, I apologized already for harping on it. Can you tell I feel strongly about the issue? I just can't help myself. No kid should be hit. Kids are innocent. It's adults who need a good whomping!

Now you know how William feels about me when he posts something about "progressive" taxation.....

 

[flyersfan31]

and I'd like you notice that I am seeing you calling my father a monster and I don't appreciate it.

I used first person pronoun, not third person. I don't believe I referred to your dad. That's an inference on your part.

BTW - kids are afraid of monsters. See what I'm sayin' there???

 

[SkyHog]

Heck, Nick. PM me your address and I'll send you a copy. If I can stop one parent (future or otherwise) from hitting their kid, the money is worth it.

Meh, I'll pass on the book. I have yet to find a book that contains solid parenting advice except the one my dad pointed out to me as a teenager which read:

"If your last name is Face, I would suggest you avoid names like 'Richard,' or your kid will never grow up right."

 

[fgcason]

Dude, I apologized already for harping on it.

No penalty points coming from this quarter. I've gone philisophical on the subject and have stepped back to observe for a while..thus the popcorn. (the 5 dots were not an edited post, they were put there just to get the post to post when I pushed the submit button)

Actually you're giving me insight into how the other side thinks on the subject at hand. That's a side that typically turns into screaming because they ran out of answers or calls the police for imagined slights or stomps off in disgust without explaining themselves. You on the other hand are continuing to use your well thought out logic and haven't resorted to name calling or such sillyness. Good for you because that makes for good discussion and persuasion. We don't necessarily agree on the details and there's no rule saying we have to or that someone has to be convinced either way. Will you convert me? Doubtful. However that doesn't mean I can't consider where you're coming from and possibly adapt some of your methods into a workable solution. No cracks in the dam at this point, I'm just using some of your mortar to reinforce things and hopefully you're doing the same on your side of the whirlpool.


...got any butter?...

 

[wbarnhill]

Dude, I apologized already for harping on it. Can you tell I feel strongly about the issue? I just can't help myself. No kid should be hit. Kids are innocent. It's adults who need a good whomping!

Now you know how William feels about me when he posts something about "progressive" taxation.....

Hehe, I'm just waiting for the day I can sit down with you at a meal and wait for the opportune time to yell out "EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT!" I figure if you're in the middle of a bite of the meal, I can either get you to choke or fall out of your chair. No worries though, I know the Heimlich

 

[Henning]

But if you can do it, as you say, limits with known penalties but without violence, without hitting - WHY HIT?? That is my point. You do not need to hit in order to instill good behavior and compliance.

Put it another way - if you keep your kid in line with violence, what happens when he grows bigger than you? It's a house of cards.

Well, then on the eve of every kids 18th b-day, a parent gets to judge their progeny and have a chance to kill them if they didn't come out right. I think parents bear that responsibility to society. If they didn't come out right, you are responsible to take them out of rotation.

 

[Ted]

Also - I do not hit my dog, because he doesn't understand why I'm hitting him, so you're wrong: Pain conditions children, not animals.

Sure, dogs understand pain/smacking quite well so long as you do it immediately.

With dogs (like with children) you do need to make sure that who/whatever you're dealing with understands that you're in charge, and what you say goes. Obviously the dog doesn't know English. That doesn't mean that he/she doesn't understand what you want.

If you don't convey this understanding that you're in charge, be it to a dog or a child, it's not going to behave. The thought that there is one way to do it effectively is incorrect, but the different ways you do it will have different results in output of the child. The parents who are trying to reason with their children (and lose) that we complain about have conveyed very well to the children that it is, in fact, the children who are in charge. Andrew does not seem to be advocating that at all, since his children still receive punishment and are taught to understand consequences for their actions.

Edit (I keep hitting edit here): When I was a babysitter in high school, I had some good examples of this. One girl I took care of whined incessently around her parents. It got them to do whatever she wanted. At the age of 2, she had enough brain power to understand what you said. So, she would whine to me "I want [whatever]!" "Maggie, ask in a normal voice and you'll get it" "WAAAAAAA!" *ignore* "Can I have [whatever] please?" "Yes." Took me two times and she never whined to me again. Similarly, she learned that if I said no, I meant it. Never hit her, not that I could have anyway since I was the babysitter.

Generaly, I found the kids I took care of behaved better around me than around their parents.

 

[flyersfan31]

Edit (I keep hitting edit here): When I was a babysitter in high school, I had some good examples of this. One girl I took care of whined incessently around her parents. It got them to do whatever she wanted. At the age of 2, she had enough brain power to understand what you said. So, she would whine to me "I want [whatever]!" "Maggie, ask in a normal voice and you'll get it" "WAAAAAAA!" *ignore* "Can I have [whatever] please?" "Yes." Took me two times and she never whined to me again. Similarly, she learned that if I said no, I meant it. Never hit her, not that I could have anyway since I was the babysitter.

Exactly.You condition kids even when you don't realize you're doing so. The folks who yield to whining end up encouraging it. That's not discipline. You can, as Ted mentions, refuse to yield to whining without resorting to hitting.

There's a famous business school case titled "Rewarding A While Hoping for B." The lessons are perhaps even more relevant to parenting.


FRANK - thanks for the kind words.

 

[Ted]

Exactly.You condition kids even when you don't realize you're doing so. The folks who yield to whining end up encouraging it. That's not discipline. You can, as Ted mentions, refuse to yield to whining without resorting to hitting.

Oh, I knew I was conditioning her (and the other kids I babysat). As the babysitter, my influence was limited, and as such the lessons tended to only stick when I was around, but there was no doubt that the kids were better behaved around me.

It all came down to an understanding that I was in charge, and what I said went. I was fair and let them have fun, but it was never in doubt that if I said no, I meant it. The facial expressions and tone of voice you use alone are frequently sufficient - kids ain't dumb.

 

[dmccormack]

Interesting and timely topic.

As an imperfect parent of three, I'll expose my ignorance.

"Discipline" is correcting certain behavior and encouraging replacement behavior (at least it is so for horses, dogs, soldiers, and kids).

The correction must be immediately applied and immediately recognizable by the wayward one (the longer the attention span, the longer the gap can be. For horses it's about 3 seconds).

• If you hit for your benefit (you're annoyed, you want quiet, they step in front of the TV, etc), it's not discipline, it's a reaction.
• If you hit for the child's long-term benefit (you interrupt your life and apply the correction, no matter how inconvenient it is to you), it's discipline.

The main difference between parents of the previous 10,000 generations and those of more recent vintage is that before, parents knew there was a tomorrow and the next day to be concerned with, and so took the long view.

Today, it's all about "how I feel now."

 

[AuntPeggy]

Generaly, I found the kids I took care of behaved better around me than around their parents.

This is often seen. You are basically a stranger and the children do not yet know where your 'hot' buttons are. So they are not pushing them. They are around Mom&Dad 24/7, so know them very well. When you and the parents are both around, they may be performing to see how you react to those well-tried buttons.
Remember, when those kids met those parents, the parents were getting almost no sleep and had to cater almost non-stop to baby needs. You get to meet them when you are refreshed and the kids can fend for themselves.

Exactly.You condition kids even when you don't realize you're doing so. The folks who yield to whining end up encouraging it. That's not discipline. You can, as Ted mentions, refuse to yield to whining without resorting to hitting.

True. When you hit kids, you teach them to equate hitting with love. You teach them to accept/expect/repeat it. Case in point: Nick.
When you yield to whining or begging or tantrums, same thing.

All of this neglects my first point. Adults who merely stop a behavior by whatever means must not also neglect their responsibility to really look and listen to WHY the behavior exists. Your responsibility as a person who can foresee consequences is to recognize a pattern and correct the situation that leads to childish outbursts before they happen.

 

[silver-eagle]

New age BS. One can use the same argument that depriving a child of their precious sleep toy is abuse, mental not physical, and FAR MORE devastating and longer lasting.
How can ANYONE say it's okay to do VIOLENCE on an animal and say it's not okay to use physical discipline on a child. Point of the entire endeavor is to teach the child or animal the limits and consequences.
I am not advocating beating the child till they can't stand. What I am saying is there are a whole lot of tools parents can use to teach their children and physical discipline is one of those tools. What you're trying to do is elicit a certain response.
I NEVER felt unloved by my parents nor did any of my 6 siblings. And we all had sessions with the proverbial paddle. It was immediate, to the point, and then it was over. I NEVER FEARED my parents. What I feared was the punishment. I learned what was right and wrong. It wasn't "grounded for a week", or "no favorite toy", or OMG the dreaded "no dessert". Many of my peers had a similar childhood. Many more of my generation had similar experiences. Odd that we're not all homicidal unloving and unfeeling monsters.
So keep your new age BS. I hope it continues to work for you. If not, I hope you won't have to surrender your parent card and give the kid away?

 

[AuntPeggy]

Wow. What a spectacular outburst. I wonder what sparked it?

"New age BS." I'm not exactly a product of the '90s, nor are my children. Nevertheless, I do enjoy some of the mellow sounds that came from that era. Wow, I just don't get the connection.

"One can use the same argument that depriving a child of their precious sleep toy is abuse, mental not physical, and FAR MORE devastating and longer lasting." I suppose. Do you know of anyone who has?

"How can ANYONE say it's okay to do VIOLENCE on an animal and say it's not okay to use physical discipline on a child." Agreed. Violence is violence.

"I am not advocating beating the child till they can't stand. What I am saying is there are a whole lot of tools parents can use to teach their children and physical discipline is one of those tools. What you're trying to do is elicit a certain response." You see, here is the difference: Are you teaching or are you eliciting a response? Certainly a good teacher looks at a problem from the point of view of the student and then gets the student to see a new thing or in a new way. Eliciting a response is not that subtle. Nor is it much of a predictor.

"Odd that we're not all homicidal unloving and unfeeling monsters." Not really, we are all basically good and moral people who want and deserve approval from those around us, especially from our family. Even those who don't get enough love and approval tend to be basically good nevertheless -- possibly less happy.

"I hope you won't have to surrender your parent card and give the kid away" Got that card stamped a long time ago. They've all been given away. Thanks for your good wishes.

Anyway, I know from your response that you got really angry over this and my little comments have probably only rubbed salt into the wound. The only thing I can think that might have elicited so much anger, you didn't even mention. "Your responsibility as a person who can foresee consequences is to recognize a pattern and correct the situation that leads to childish outbursts before they happen."

 

[silver-eagle]

Wow. ...SNIP...

Not a reply to your comment. You missed the reference to beating an animal being okay but not a child. Then there was the little matter of inferring my parents were monsters (although he did try to backpeddle on that one). That did get me a little torqued.

 

[flyersfan31]

New age BS. One can use the same argument that depriving a child of their precious sleep toy is abuse, mental not physical, and FAR MORE devastating and longer lasting.
How can ANYONE say it's okay to do VIOLENCE on an animal and say it's not okay to use physical discipline on a child. Point of the entire endeavor is to teach the child or animal the limits and consequences.
I am not advocating beating the child till they can't stand. What I am saying is there are a whole lot of tools parents can use to teach their children and physical discipline is one of those tools. What you're trying to do is elicit a certain response.
I NEVER felt unloved by my parents nor did any of my 6 siblings. And we all had sessions with the proverbial paddle. It was immediate, to the point, and then it was over. I NEVER FEARED my parents. What I feared was the punishment. I learned what was right and wrong. It wasn't "grounded for a week", or "no favorite toy", or OMG the dreaded "no dessert". Many of my peers had a similar childhood. Many more of my generation had similar experiences. Odd that we're not all homicidal unloving and unfeeling monsters.
So keep your new age BS. I hope it continues to work for you. If not, I hope you won't have to surrender your parent card and give the kid away?

YOWSA!!! And after I got a nice compliment about keeping the discussion reasonable and fair. Sheesh.

I'm glad your parents beat you. Seems like it did you good. Clearly you never engage in unwarranted outbursts or attacks.

My position is not, as you so gracefully put it, new age BS. I don't believe in pyramid power, or crystals, nor do I listen to that dreadful music.

I'm curious, how much responsibility do you have for raising your children, if you have any? You seem not to understand the psychology of a child very well. You approach it from an adult perspective. Your parents beat you, you claim to have turned out ok, hence, beating is good.

I am shocked and saddened by some of the vehement arguments in favor of corporal punishment posted here. Some folks seem to interpret my stance against it as a personal affront, and an attack on their parents. I'm not judging the past - I believe I've been pretty consistent in encouraging a change in future behavior. I have used the word "implore" but not "demand." Nowhere have I said you are bad or evil. Wrong, maybe. Misguided, although I haven't said so directly. It amazes me to see what a reaction I provoke. Makes me wonder.