Category: Let's talk
I was going to post this to Parent Talk, but I'd like to hear from parents and nonparents alike, as I'm sure each side will bring something interesting to the table. For the record, I am not a parent, and have not had firsthand experience with a child. Still, I do think that these ideas are logical and well-thought out. I was brought up with several of them, and have developed others over time.
In this essay, I shall discuss several forms of disciplining children, including hitting/spanking, time out, grounding, and punishments. Note that, for the sake of being concise, I'm using one gender, but this applies to boys and girls alike.
Hitting is less common, at least in America, than it used to be. But it's still a widely used form of discipline, to one degree or another. Very rarely do I support this option. Even in cases where I do, I strongly believe it should be limited to a quick smack with the hand. Any use of other objects, such as belts, brushes, spoons, flip flops, or even shirts or rags, constitutes abuse to me. Sadly, there are actually still young people in this world who support such actions as a means of disciplining children. Some of my examples above came from them. Once you leve marks on a child that don't go away after half an hour or so, you've become an abuser, and should be punished accordingly. I'm sure that, knowing that I'm an ethnikofron, some of you will point out that The Colonels most definitely hit their children, probably with objects. But the youngest of them would have been 93! Clearly, they came from a different time, when this kind of parenting strategy was widely accepted, and also grew up in villages, so weren't really exposed to the outside world. Not all modern ideas are bad, and I should hope that we've progressed in that area of thinking since then. Personally, the only time I could see myself really hitting a child would be if he ran out into the street. I would probably grab him and smack him once across the face. In my case, it would be done out of extreme fear, not only for the safety of the child, but due to the fact that I wouldn't be able to stop him from doing it again, since I couldn't see him. It's far better for a child to receive a single smack, or even two, from a frightened parent, than to die after being hit by a car!
The idea of time out, or sitting still, is often used on children who misbehave. Its' affectiveness depends on several factors. Some children are very social and love being with their friends, playing games etc. So if they have to sit still, it really upsets them and they are able to quickly learn the lesson. Others are very imaginative so can easily pretend things or think of other things while they're in time out. This is especially true of introverts who may not wish to play with other children, but rather, to get away from them. Yet even when the child hates it, constant use of this form of discipline can be harmful. At best, the child will stop fearing it and may think that he can go back to having fun after a few minutes. In the worst case, it could make children afraid that no matter what they do, they'll get in trouble. So, as with all forms of discipline, this must be used only when appropriate.
One of the best forms of disciplining, in my opinion, for serious or recurring bad behaviour, is taking things away and making the child earn them back. Considering all the toys and technological gear that children have today, this can be an interesting form of punishment. It may be one or two beloved things at first, and if the bad behaviour continues, more things can be taken. But they should never include novels or educational books and must be things that the child truly loves and will miss. As the childs' behaviour improves, these things can be returned. If only one or two things have been taken, it's best to let the child know that he is on a probational period, a few days to a week. At any time, should the bad behaviour return, the object/s must be taken again. But once that period has passed, if the child continues to act appropriately, you should give the objects back and let him know that you're proud and glad that he has learned the lesson that you were trying to teach. If, however, you truly believe that he has learned this before hand, and if he comes to you with a genuine apology, you should consider giving the things back earlier. Remember, the ultimate goal of any form of parental discipline is not simply punishment, but also to get the child to understand what he did wrong and why it angered you.
One of the most drastic ways of punishing a child is grounding. This may, in very severe cases, be used in conjunction with taking things away, including computer time. While this won't work in the same way for an introvert, he may still like to go to certain places to enjoy nature or to read. Reading should never be discouraged, nor should going to the library. But in that case, if possible, the parent should take the name of a book or two and get it for the child, so that he feels limited and cannot enjoy the freedom of spending time in the library. For most children, however, merely not being able to play with their friends is their idea of torture. So it can be a very affective means of getting a point across if used wisely. If, during a grounding or a time when many things are taken away, a child starts to complain, there's an easy and painless solution. Make him/her do chores! Of course, I don't mean anything too strenuous, or for hours at a time, but there is bound to be a whole list of things that children can do to remain busy and help their parents. Writing something x amount of times is also a decent form of punishment, provided the amount isn't extreme. and the sentence isn't too long. Doing this will also leave an impression in the childs' mind of what it is that he mustn't do. Blind children can do this as well, using a slate and stylus, though their times should be reduced.
While not exactly related to the methods of disciplining, rules are an important part of a childs' life. That said, I believe that the best way to teach a child something is to live it. If you tell him not to litter, don't throw things wherever. If you say that he must make his bed, then you should do likewise. If you believe that children shouldn't use profanity, don't do it around them and use the excuse that, since you're an adult, it's fine for you but not for them. Respect is also key. Don't expect your child to respect Aunt Maria if you keep calling her a jerk, and don't treat your child as if he is worth any less just because he is younger than you. If you wish to be respected, you need to give it in return. At the same time, you need to enforce the idea that you are not your childs' friend, but rather, his parent. He will make plenty of friends in the future, but there's only one you. He needs to know that and that he can rely on you to stay around, unlike friends who come and go. While you should be tough and stand your ground, you should also take the time to point out your childs' accomplishments. If all your child sees you as is a disciplinarian, and if he fears rather than loves you, you're not doing your job.
To conclude, there are many methods of disciplining children. Some should be used more frequently than others, and each has its' own benefits and drawbacks. Keeping this in mind, and bringing up a child with love and respect is almost guaranteed to insure positive results for all.
I agree with you on almost all points. I chuckled when I read about your view on time out, since I was very introverted as a child and still am today. But you're right about it being ineffective for someone who liked to sit quietly to begin with. My parents caught onto that after a few times, and stopped using it. Taking things away was always the most effective thing my parents did. I loved music, to the exclusion of most other things, in fact, and they would sometimes take away my tapes and stuff if I had done something wrong. Man, did I hate that.
One area I think you're wrong in though is writing things down. I think this kind of repetition only brands a bad idea onto the developing psyche of a child. What comes to mind for me is when Harry Potter had to write "I must not tell lies" over and over in his own blood for Professor Umbridge's sick pleasure. Of course, that can't really be done to that extreme in reality, but the idea of it is the same. I don't think you want to so directly or strongly encourage that your child is a bad person. Because, honestly, that's what that kind of punishment implies.
I agree that the way in which it was done in Harry Potter was extreme, not only for the obvious reason, but also for the amount of times he had to do it. I think it was 100 or so. I would say maybe 10 or 20 times should be enough. It's not that you're saying "I'm bad, I am a liar". But it does instill the idea that telling lies is bad. Of course, I would also sit the child down and have a very serious talk about it, as this is one of the most important things that a child can learn. I'd say it this way. "When you tell the truth, even if it's bad, we can work on it. We can talk about it. It's not as I'll hurt you, stop loving you, or throw you out because you did something wrong. But when you lie, I can never trust you, even when you're telling the truth, because you lied in the past. Even if you have nothing in life, you still have your word, and your word is your honour." That's how I was taught. Also, the story of the boy who cried wolf, which honestly scared me! I didn't like the idea that I could really be in trouble but no one would believe me because I would have been a liar. As a consequence, I only lied once to my mother in my life. I was later caught and she said "what was the big deal? Why couldn't you just tell me!" Getting off the soap box now, but I really do believe this is a very important lesson.
The most amusing form of discipline my parents tried to use when I was a child was, "Go to your room." OK, cool. My room had my toys, my books, my music, etc. When I didn't want to be around family, I sometimes deliberately misbehaved, knowing I would be told to go to my room. I'm not the only person I know who did that as a child. I've heard other friends my age tell the same story about their own childhood. I think today's parents are smarter about that particular form of punishment, hence why things like time-out may be used more often.
The other lesson I learned is, if you're going to threaten something, anything, you have to follow through. I can't tell you how many times my parents said that if I or my sisters continued a certain behavior, we would be grounded, or we'd get something taken away, etc, and it never actually happened. We learned very quickly that the threat would not be followed through on, therefore such tactics became absolutely useless. So I'd say if a parent is going to threaten to take an action, they'd better be prepared to follow through, and if they're not, then don't say it in the first place.
There are no easy answers to this, because the personality of the child has to be taken into consideration, as you pointed out, Eleni. A form of discipline that works great for one kid may not work so well for the other. That's probably a big problem in a family with many kids: it's easier to try to discipline the same way across the board, but not as effective.
It's something I wish more parents would think about. Kids are smart little manipulators, and I think they often read their parents better than the parent reads themselves.
I couldn't have said it more eloquently than you did. You hit upon some very important points, several of which I actually should have written into the essay!
Thing is, my brother and I got those things taken out of our rooms before we were sent there.
I agree with Alicia Completely. When i was young the most serious punnishment was a slam on the face with a back of a house slipper. Yes, it may be seen as crual or abusive behaviour or that, but yet, i fully understand why my mom did it. I was quite old though, about 10 or 11 or something. As the result, me and my mom didn't talk for about 10 days or so.
I seriously agree that what you said you wanting to do as a parent you need to carry on. Kids like pets, ones they know they can cross the boundry, they will do it again.
I agree with you on most counts as well.
But a smack in teh face--I wouldn't hit a kid in the face under any circumstances. I have a son and my rule is, I don't spank him in any way unless he's in a life-threatening situations like you described, but in that instance, I can swat him on the behind. But never the head, the face, or the stomach. I got slapped in the face once by my mom. it didn't turn out to feel like punishment, but humiliation. No one wants to be slapped in the face, even if they ran out in the street and had almost been hit by a car.
Another thing I'll ad is that, with any form of punishment, you should always talk to yrou child to make them understand why they were punished. Make it a lesson, not a pointless punishment.
That's very true, very well said. I'll share something that is pretty embarrassing, but I feel it plays into this discussion. When I was very young, I sort of figured out how to masturbate, even if I didn't know quite what it was. My dad caught it at me one day, and hit me with a belt to drill the point into my head that that was a very bad and wrong thing to do. And, since my sister saw me getting punished for that offense, she ratted me out a few times when she caught me at it again. So, to this day, I kind of have hang-ups about it, thinking it's not right. I've since read that even very young children masturbate, or at least touch themselves without knowing what they're doing. But to me, there will always be a certain amount of shame attached to it, because I remember being screamed at, being told how wrong it was, and the sting of the belt on my behind.
Wow, what a nice dad.
I can't believe only one person so far mentioned that you should first and foremost, talk to your children about why they're being punished. or, better yet, as I've seen a close friend do with her kids, encourage them to think about why themselves.
most times, they'll do so; that helps them learn to become self aware, and, also, in my opinion, teaches them other valuable lessons.
hitting a child on the face is an absolute no no, under any circumstances.
In my personal opinion, telling a child that a certain type of behavior is wrong is utterly useless without them knowing why. This goes for children with any level of inteligence. a less inteligent child will most likely refrain from such behavior to avoid being punished, end of story, not because they themselves think it's wrong. a more inteligent child will most likely notice that their parent failed to provide a reason as to why the behavior was wrong, and thus, they might come to the conclusion that such a reason simply does not exist, and simply choose to ignore the warnings, lectures, and even punishments. I did this on several occasions. I would endure the punishment, sure, but the only thing I thought about while in my room with nothing to do was how to avoid getting caught in the future; not how my actions might have caused harm to others. Guilt is, to me, the most affective punishment. I didn't care how long you lectured me and how many blows I received in the process. if I didn't feel guilty for what I had done, I saw the whole experience as my parents demonstrating their own weaknesses, and I looked down on them for it. But if I felt guilty about something, even if I didn't get caught, and subsequently punished for it, you'd better believe I didn't do it again. Now, it's sad how many parents can munipulate their kids into feeling guilty. Like any method of punishment, this can be abused. But if we're talking about affectiveness, that's definitely the way to go.
write away, I think, in that case, it would be an automatic reaction. I wouldn't intend on hitting him in the face, but I'd probably have my heart jump into my throat and wouldn't be thinking. I completely agree with you about talking. To me, it was such an obvious thing that I didn't even think to include it in the essay, which was wrong on my part. I was never punished without it being explained to me, and as I got older, I would think about it and apologise for my actions. ShatteredSanity, I can certainly see how that's embarassing, but I can assure you that the fault was not your's. That was a very abusive and horrible way to handle the situation on your father's part. I would have just explained that this is something you do when older, or at the least, not to do it around anyone, since it's a private thing.
I agree with post 12. If I honestly didn't feel like I was at fault, then no amount of anything my parents tried made a damn bit of difference.
that could have something to do with the abuse i'd taken from one individual in my past, but still.
Even so, for the most part, I think corporal punishment is the easy way out, and rather ineffective on the hole.
Though again, more often than not corporal punishment to me was mentally viewed as "Well, ok, you can cause me pain and I can't defend my self because i'm not strong enough. So, what?... what are you proving?"
I agree with James. corpral punishment is never the way to go.
people say, "well, you don't have kids yet. therefore, you can't say you will or won't do this". when, actually, I can, as I know how inaffective it was for me, and others personally.
if I learned anything, it was that those who inflicted such treatment were bullies, cause, not once was it explained to me why I was spanked repeatedly.
I'm sorry, I find it hilariously funny that your default reaction for a child running into the street is to hit them across the face, yet a hairbrush to the behind, that's child abuse. Of course, when I say funny, I also include terrifying, as the idea of anyone's default reaction being a hit to the face is a horrifying one.
Spanking can be an effective way of punishment, but punishment is not a good thing to do. Punishment means only to replace a bad behavior withh a pain or a discourse, it does not mean to replace the bad behavior with a good behavior. This would be the better ideal.
If you have a child who hits his sister, lets say, finding out why he hit her, and giving him a recourse to hitting would be necessary. Of course, you would also have to imprint the idea that hitting is wrong, but that can easily be done without hitting the child. Only then, once the good behavior has been instilled should punishment be the reaction to the negative behavior.
Think of it this way. If you bring a new puppy home and it peas on the carpet, it isn't its fault, it has no idea that doing that is wrong, so you can't really punish it. You have to replace peeing on the carpet with peeing outside. Once that has been done, if it pees on the carpet again, you punish the puppy. Chilldren are, in point of fact, not very different from puppies.
In closing, let me make it perfectly clear, never, under any circumstances, even if they run out in front of a speeding freight train, should you hit your child in the face. If you do, I fully support the idea of having the most muscular men I could find punch you in the face until you realize the difference in proportion between yourself and your child, and remember that it is your job to protect, not injure or humiliate your child.
very well stated, Cody. I'll take it a step further and say that anyone who thinks their reaction to their child running into the street would be to slap her or him in the face shouldn't have kids. although, I quite like your statement about having said person punched repeatedly by a really muscular man. that oughta show them the humiliation their child would feel, and, maybe, encourage them to rethink their anger issues.
I really never understood the value in forcing a child to write lines either, besides, perhaps, improving their writing skills, which you can do in plenty of other ways. But once again, much like any other punishment without a reason the child can understand, long term, it most likely isn't going to accomplish anything.
Again, it might not even happen. Maybe, I'd just grab him, or yell at him, or smack him on the arm. I certainly don't advocate hitting a child on the face, even for that. The only reason I *might* do such a thing is, as I have said, an automatic reaction out of fear. I would also apologise afterword and would feel quite guilty. I agree that, with children and puppies, it's important to teach them first, and to punish them only if they transgress in the same manner a second time. This was a very good point. I also agree that, for the most part, hitting is wrong. The only exception I would make is if the child was defending himself against physical violence, or truly hurtful things said against his mother or the nation. But while learning self-defence, it's very important to instill the idea that it's only appropriate to get physical in certain serious situations, not over a silly fight.
How is it ok to hit someone if they speak against their nation. That'st eh same thing as excusing people for being violent in defense of their religion. I'm really sorry, maybe I'm not patriotic enough, but when I come across this crap about defending one's nation, I cringe and shake my head--I don't think it's ok for a kid to hit someone because they say something about the place where he lives. I think people forget that a nation is only made up of the people who reside there. So if a nation is made up of people who hit others as a form of defense against negative verbal expression, it's a nation of violent monsters.
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point.
I totally agree with the last post.
I'm a nationalist, so see things a bit differently. Granted, I've had debates with people who said bad things about Greece, and I didn't resort to hitting them. It's true that we were online, but in most cases, I think I would have kept things civil. But there are certain lines which shouldn't be crossed. Expressing an opinion is one thing. Being blatantly disrespectful to Hellenic culture and Hellas in general is another. Still, I did say hit, not kill, not beat unconscious. Perhaps, children shouldn't be taught that, since they might get it wrong and use it as an excuse to hit people, which is not acceptible. Maybe, this is a concept best left to adults.
So what you're saying is that adults should be able to hit someone in defense of what they believe in strongly, in defense against disrespect, but kids shouldn't, lest they get the wrong idea?
Isn't that a form of regression for adults?
I think, regardless of whether you're a devout Christian, Jew, Bhudist etc. or you're a nationalist, there's no excuse for violence. Saying that hitting is ok, as long as you've not beat someone into unconsciousness is like saying "Yeah, I cheated on that test, but I only did so for half the questions... it's all right."
Perhaps bhudists would understand this better than anyone, since their filosophy stemms from not resorting to violence...
It irks me that it's ok for somethings to transpire because they do so among adults, not children. I say so because, as adults, aren't we supposed to provide kids with examples instead of preaching at them what's good and what's bad and then doing whatever we want instead?
Actions speak louder than words. But perhaps this argument is off topic to this thread... Still, I think it's warranted, even if only for debate's sake.
This topic took on an interestingf turn. The poster had to back peddle on her reaction to her child running in the street. My reaction would be to catch her or him if I could and hug then close, because there now safe. A punishment would be the last thing on my mind at that point, but some education. I could explain and show a child what would happen if I had not been able to save him or her, so that next time they'd know bhetter, but a slap?
I am not afraid to change my view when I have been proven wrong, or when better options are presented. It doesn't happen often, but I believe that being stubborn gets you nowhere, particularly when dealing with intelligent people. Punishment wouldn't be on my mind either. I would be scared to death, so it would be more of a "don't ever do that again" while I'd be thinking "oh dear Gods of Olympos! He could have been killed!" Of course, once my heart rate was normal and I could breathe properly again, I would apologise, and as you've described, hug my child and explain why it's never a good idea to run into the street.
It's not as if I'd grab the kid and beat him. I really would be so scared that I'd probably do it just to make sure that he never did that again, and it might even be a purely automatic and subconscious reaction. Being that I'm totally blind, one of my biggest fears, even with a dog, is that he'd run off and I couldn't see it happening to stop him. I couldn't even imagine what would happen if a child or animal died while under my care because of something like that!
The idea that you even contemplate your subconscious reaction being to beat your child is abhorrantly terrifying. One must therefore voice two thoughts. First, to what other situations do you think the subconscious recourse should be to use unmitogated violence against an innocent child. The second is to hope furvently that you never have children, or that you beat them in front of a very good lawyer who gets them taken away. I do not take the beating of children lightly under any circumstances.
Parenthetically, "Oh thank gods of olympos" made me giggle uncontrollably, thanking dozens of beings on top of a perfectly climbable mountain, talk about regression.
Woe! A single smack, even on the face, is not beating! Doing it repeatedly is. I believe that those who abuse children should be tortured, and if it's severe enough, they should be executed! So I would never! take part in such things! And I never said, anywhere, that "the subconscious recourse should be to use unmitogated violence against an innocent child." Note the word should. I do not promote such things. I said it would "probably" happen, so it's not a given. You seriously need help yourself, if you're putting down people's religions. Then again, you completely misread all of my above explanations, so why am I not surprised?
it doesn't matter if you slap your child once, or 20 times. it still sends a very clear message. I was scared, and I let my fear get the better of me and hit you. Once again, that screams weakness to me. What is that teaching your child?
Once again, it's a very rare situation. It says that you were frightened because you love your child and don't want anything to happen to him. It would be the same thing if he put his hand near the hot stove and you grabbed it and yelled at him. Maybe, it was the first time he did it, and he didn't know better. But, knowing that this could have been a very tragic situation, it's understandable. Ideally, you would have discussed this with him before it even happened, just as with the street, but life doesn't always work out as planned, and sometimes, even after a discussion, children don't listen.
oh, child of mine, I love you so much. I know I only smacked you once for running in front of that car, but oh, how I love you! please, know that.
Right, just like the husband who put his wife in the hospital loves his wife so very very much. "I love you so much, that's why you now have a broken nose son. Nevermind that you're four and I'm vastly stronger than you are, and nevermind that I just gave into my fear and that fear manifested itself in my fist across your face, I still love you. Now, how about some ice cream, and don't mind that sprig of foxglove on top, that's just because I love you too."
You're completely missing the point. The point is not how many times you'd hit your kid, or why you'd hit your kid, its that your default reaction, your base reaction, the action that would come strictly from fear and not rational thought is to strike a child across the face. That, no matter how you want to babble on to try and justify it whilst only succeeding in making yourself look more inhumane, is abuse of an innocent child. The child did nothing to deserve a blow to the face, and thus is innocent. The fact that you fail to understand this only increases the abject terror at the idea of you bearing offspring.
Though, from a strictly personal point of view, the idea of anyone who cannot differentiate Bullfinch from reality shouldn't be bearing children anyway. Wait until you can tell that santa clause doesn't exist before you try and raise the next generation, metaphorically speaking of course.
Tiff, as desperate as you are to cling to the idea that you can apologize profusely to a child after smacking him or her in the face even once, in turn, thinking he/she will take it as meaningful and move on without any damage having been done, that's an incredibly disturbing view to have.
you know what will make the biggest imprint on your child? not the fact you play with him 10 times a day, but the fact you hit him. he won't hear the words "I'm so sorry". instead, what will sink in, as Cody articulated, is something to the affect of, "mommy is bigger than me, therefore, she hits me when I do something wrong in her eyes".
I sincerely hope you stick to your stance on not having children, too. with your outlook, we'd all be better off.
Um, just a question to the original poster, If your child ran across the street, shouldn't you, as a parent, be responsible for that.This mean then, someone should slap your face then for being an irresponsible parent. Afterall, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander no? Humiliateing such a small child whom trust you explicitly because you are his/her mom under the pretext of love and fear is frankly pethetic and disgusting!!
And, just so you know, I have a daughter, and she was tought from very early on never to run across the street, and that she has to give me her hand before we'd walk across. She knows this rule is non-nagociable for her own safety, and because I don't want to see her hurt.
I agree with you mini.
You should never put your hands on your child if you are feeling a strong emotion like fear or anger, and slapping your child across the face? No no. It then crosses the line into abuse.
happy heart, Is that not better than "oh, child of mine, I love you so much. I know I let you get hit by that car, because, the first time, when you ran out into the street, I was so afraid of hitting you or humiliating you, that I just hugged you and said it would all be okay and didn't impress upon you how very dangerous this could be. So now I'm at your funeral and/or in the hospital as you get your fifth opperation, but oh, how I love you! please, know that."
SilverLightning, get off the mavraki re! There is absolutely no comparison, whatsoever, between an abusive husband, who purposefully and knowingly harms his wife, and a mother who, one time in her life, hit a child as an emotional and scared reaction! I did say "or even two" when referring to the car incident, and that much I will take back. One is excusable, due to the emotional state of the parent. Two is not.
How many times must I explain that I do not support or promote hitting children as any kind of normal activity! My mother, like me, is not the hitting type, and believes in protecting, nurturing and teaching children, rather than just yelling at them for no reason. But yes, there were a few times in my life when she did hit me, and there were some times when she slapped me across the face! Would I allow it from anyone as an adult,? Absolutely not! But when she did this, it was because she tried practically every other strategy known to humanity and I simply didn't listen! Do I hate her guts, and am I emotionally scarred by this? No! Not once in my life did I think that Mom hit me just because she's bigger than me. In fact, she was the one who always said "what do you get from hitting a child? Does it make you a better person because you're bigger and hit someone who couldn't defend themselves?" So give me a break!
mini schtroumpfette, did I not explain that it's best to teach these things before they even happen? I would never wait for my child to run across the street before having this discussion. As with you, I would have it when he was very young, and teach him from the start.
If we are resorting to justifying hitting a child I have much to say on this subject. First off, it teaches nothing. Well, okay, it does teach the child to behave while the parent is around. After all, they'll be hit. However, as soon as that child is left alone, it's time to put peanut butter in the coffee pot. Keep hitting him or her and see what happens. I confess that this example I gave of peanut butter in the coffee pot is quite silly and unrealistic, but my point stands. On to my second point. Any child who is hit can easily grow to not trust a parent. If you really want your kid to come to you with a problem, what good is it if they fear you? Finally, hitting a child could verry easily cause the child to resent and even disrespect the parent. So much for that hoopla about respecting one's elders. In short, hitting a child is wrong. It is as simple as that.
using the fact it'd be a knee jerk reaction to smack your child in the face is not inexcusable, in spite of how much thinking otherwise is appealing to you.
maybe someday, someone (perhaps your mom, or another person you're close to) will decide to hhit you, just cause, you know, they were angry. sure you're all adults, but they were in a fit of rage for one reason or another. and, well, you just happened to be the first thing they found to take it out on, so oh well. no big deal. you won't be emotionally scared, or hurt in any other way, right? therefore, it won't matter.
using the fact it'd be a knee jerk reaction to smack your child in the face is not inexcusable, in spite of how much thinking otherwise is appealing to you.
maybe someday, someone (perhaps your mom, or another person you're close to) will decide to hhit you, just cause, you know, they were angry. sure you're all adults, but they were in a fit of rage for one reason or another. and, well, you just happened to be the first thing they found to take it out on, so oh well. no big deal. you won't be emotionally scarred, or hurt in any other way, right? therefore, it won't matter.
Well said Chelsea.
Indeed!
I got the soap in the mouth nonsense a few times. I say nonsense because really, your parents are gonna swear within earshot of a little four-year-old and expect them not to repeat what they hear? Totally idiotic.
Ah, so we got to the bottom of this finally. Your first gut reaction to a child doing something potentially fatally wrong is to hit him across the face. You didn't mean to, it just subconsciouslly happened. Why? because your mother did the same to you. She didnt' mean to, she did it out of fear. you say so yourself. So does that not mean you're emotionally scarred, if the first thing your subconscious would drive you to do is to lash out physically at a child while afraid? Does that not mean that particular gesture is imprinted on your psychy? That just screams being scarred if you ask me. That's why it's not ok to hit your kid, even out of fright. Because they'll resort to the same behavior with their own, even if they dont' advocate abuse.
I did not say that my mother did it out of fear. I said that I would do it out of fear. This is why I feel psychology is a bunch of bullshit in most cases. My mother also taught me values of sacrifice, self-respect, honesty, and honour. Am I emotionally scarred because I would pass these onto my children? Did I say that she hit me every day or that she encouraged it? Did I not explain that she has always spoken against hitting, and that it was an extremely rare occurrence when this happened? It's not as if she grabbed a belt and beat my butt raw, kept hitting me in the face, or threatened me with hitting every time I did something wrong. Also, by the time she did this, I was old enough to know better. It's not as if I was a little baby. Her usual method of discipline was sending me to my room to make me think about things, and no, I didn't have a bunch of things to distract me. I actually did think about what I did, realised why it was wrong, and apologised to her. If anything, I believe that parents forcing children to apologise is bad for the mind. It gives the impression that, so long as you say you're sorry, whether you mean it or not, all will be forgiven. I would much rather either no apology or one which the child thinks of on his own.
As for soap in the mouth, I'm very much against that and never had it done. Not only does it not teach anything, but it's abuse. And no, there is no way to justify that one with emotions. Everyone uses profanity at one time or another, and it's not life threatening.
Loss of x number of privileges for x amount of time, perhaps extra chores. No rasing a hand to the kid.
So wait, putting a bit of completely nonharmful soap in a child's mouth is abuse, but smacking them across the face isn't? You crooked-minded waste of space you. I beg whatever gods, olympian or otherwise, will rip your uterus out before allowing you to have children. A person with such incredibly fucked up morals should not legally be allowed to be entrusted with anyone weaker than they are, let alone allowed to bear them themselves. You make me sick beyond all description.
You asked at what point you have to stop defending yourself, that point is exactly when you realize that hitting a child across the face under any circumstance is entirely wrong. The fact that you have to continuously add modifiers like "normal" to your sentences is disturbing. The fact that you don't realize your doing it would be terrifying, but I'm starting to see that your grasp on reality is highly flawed, so maybe it isn't really all that surprising.
You terrify and sicken me beyond the measure of my powers of explanation. You are the picture of a highly disturbed indevidual.
I've had the soap in the mouth thing done to me too, and not even for cursing, but for "talking back" which, to my parents, basically just meant disagreeing with them. All it taught me was that Ivory soap tastes like shit, so I shouldnt try to eat it. Seriously, throwing up because soap tastes so bad is not a lesson at all under any circumstances.
Yep, same here. This is one reason I don't miss my father. He was the one who did most of it.
Even though I know I’m beating a dead horse, I will attempt one more time to get the point expressed by many to the topic across to the original poster…
Is it wrong for a child to run across the street? Of course not! But it is excusable since he’s still learning to decipher what is dangerous and what isn’t.
Is it wrong to slap a child in the face no matter the frequency and the reason to justify such humiliating action? Freaking no! And there’s no excuse possible because you are an adult, and heaven should forbid, a potential parent… The only time I’d agree with you Tif, is if every time you do something to cause anger, your child has the right to slap you across the face too! After all, I believe in fairness and not hypocrisy!
So to close off, do 2 wrongs make a right? I leave that up to your intelligent mind! Just don’t make yourself sound ridiculous by saying one thing yet potentially doing the opposite please. And, new flash... a child will learn through what you do and not what you say...
Cody, calm down. lol
I have to disagree with you that soap is nonharmful. if it was nonharmful, kids wouldn't be stopped from eating it during bathtime, etc. If it was non harmful, people wouldn't have bad skin reactions to it and there wouldnt' be extrasensative ones marketed just for babies. If it can dammage one's skin, it certainly doesn't belong in one's mouth.
That too is a a form of abuse, and personally, I might have chosen the occasional swat on the behind over the soap in the mouth. That to me always seemed cruel and unjust. I have trouble with the fact that people can actually rationalize it. It doesn't make any sense and teaches a kid nothing.
Let's not jump at the original poster and say we wish for her uterus to be ripped out... how would you guys like it if someone wished for your balls to be stomped on by an elephant because you condone multiple and simultaneous casual sex partners, for example? Worse people have had multiple children. And killed them. and maimed them. and neglected them and stayed on welfare for an entire lifetime.
I think she got the message that we dont' think a slap in the face is appropriate--her suggestion may have been skewed, but that doesn't make her evil. From the looks of it, it seems she's an intelligent and articulate enough person, so let's just drop the chastizing. There have been a dozen different board posts expressing the distaste of a slap in the face to a kid. I think rehashing it and being exaggeratingly cruel doesn't drive the point any further.
Sorry. Just want to be fair to everyone. I report fairness as I see it.
SilverLightning, what the fuck is your problem with me! Every chance you get, you have to personally attack me, twist my words around, and try to prove whatever it is that you're proving. You refuse to listen to anything I have to say, and keep your opinions of me, regardless of how I explain things when asked. I've tried to keep things civil, but you're going way overboard. Is this how you were taught to debate, by wishing evil things on people and calling them names? How mature does that make you look? Also, news flash! You can be sterilised without having your uterus ripped out, and again, there are more acceptible ways to say that you wish someone couldn't have children. For the record, I had my tubes tied on 22 September, 2011.
As for the rest of you, you're making it sound as if I'd take a child and smack him every day across the face. It was a single example, buried among all the other forms of discipline which I've discussed, and one which might not even happen!
Aww tiff, lightning does that to lots of us. He's done it to me and I just tell myself that perhaps he will grow out of it. As for my own post, I hope you didn't think I was making you out to be a monster. I was simply giving my viewpoint.
No, you were quite respectful, and presented your case very well. I was not offended at all. Thanks for the heads-up on SilverLightning. He's a pseftomangas with a big mouth.
My problem with you is that you are putting up a post about, and defending the act of striking a child in the face. A child, a young person with whose safety and security you have been entrusted. Then, when faced with logical and kind rebukes of your stance, you do not reverse it, you defend it and try to twist it into a light which makes you look good, but doesn't change the fact that you are striking a child in the face. You rail aginst the other examples of violence, and yet you stilll cling to those which you deem as acceptible, which appear to include a fear reaction of striking a child in the face. This is inhumane, cruel, base, and frankly awful.
Not only that, but you continuously post topics on views which are purely, to any rational mind, complete and utter crockery. You expect to put up these posts and have everyone reply with things like, "well I say old boy, you're a complete bumbling moron, but that might hhurt your feelings if I say that. So, pup pup cherio and lets all be friends". I am not, never have been, and never will be willing to do this. I will not pull punches for sake of your fragile feelings. Your feelings are none of my concern, and frankly do not effect me in the slightest. I do not, no matter how much you may whine, care about how you feel about me or my posts. If you do not wish responses, and honest responses, then stop putting up board posts.
If you continue to put up board posts insisting Bullfinch and Homer were composing true accounts of history, then I will continue to point out the shheer idiocy of that claim. Ideas like that are dangerous to a healthy society, and must be dealt away with. When you see an insect on your kitchen floor, you don't pour it a cup of tea and ask it nicely if it wouldn't mind packing up and moving into a studio apartment downtown, you crush it. Your ideas, whether about religion, or about smacking a child in the face, are insects upon society and humanity, and I will do everything in my power to stamp them out. I can only hope that others will join me in doing so.
Write Of Way, you know I have vast amounts of respect for you, or at least I hope you do. You are correct that soap can be harmful, but I was trusting in the logic of a parent to not allow the swallowing of said soap, and to not have soap available to children, (let alone use it on them), which was harmful to them. If a child has a reaction to a soap, the parent should throw it away. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree that the soap in the mouth is not an effective punishment. I've had it done twice, and it does nothing.
As for asking me how I would feel if I was told I should have my testicals stomped on by an elephant ETC. it would be one of the more mild things I have been told. I have received real death threats before for some of my essays on other sites. I would respond with logic and evidence, not this action by the poster here which I can only phrase as childish whining.
If you look back at my posts, you will notice that in the first ones, I was not insulting, I posted quite calmly. However, when you begin to defend such actions as abusing a child, which yes this is child abuse, then I become angry, and I no longer care to engage in civil conversation with you. I would not speak to a child abuser in jail with kind words, and I will not speak to one who defends the actions of that child abuser with kind words. You do not, in point of fact, deserve that kindness. You surrender that when you begin, in any way, to defend the action of striking a child across the face for any reason whatsoever or under any circumstance. That is inhumane, and I will not treat it with anything even approaching civil respect.
In short, I do not give respect instantly, it is given only when earned, and maintained only when deserved. And for any of you who think I would treat those posters who agree with my mindset any differently, I can only say you are wrong. If chelsea, if she does not mind me using her as an example, were to post an absolutely moronic idea, I would be completely brutal and frank with her also. I treat everyone equal, even if you don't like how I treat them.
Never, under any circumstance, should you hit an innocent child in the face. I agree with you Cody. The fact that you deem this a worthy punishmentmakes me question your character, a lot. I may say, think, and do a lot of things, but never would it cross my mind to hit a child in the face, especially for something such as almost getting hurt. you hug them and explain o them why that's dangerous and reinstill them the amount of love you have for them. I'm sorry, but if you think hitting a child is showing them love, you are sorely delusional and mistaken.
That may sound harsh, but I cannot dim or take back the way I feel
Ok, note to self, never post something when half asleep. I meant to say freking yes, instead of freaking no.
And to Tiff, listening is a 2 ways street! to simplify, If you would like for us to listen to you, then you too must do the same. None of us ever said you strike a child everyday, we are saying that no matter the frequency, it is wrong to slap a child across the face. And, it is just as wrong to entertain such an action should the situation occur.
When was young we got spanked when we were bad and it did not kill us. I think now days people want to scream abuse to easily. Enough said.
No. Not enough said. Please do go into greater details about your justification of both spanking being okay, and about how we're quote on quote, "screaming abuse" too easily. I may be willing to respectfully disagree with your views if you can provide a well thought out reason as to why you feel this way. But until you do, you are just spouting worthless bullshit. I do realize that spanking is a highly controversial topic, but your words will never make an impact if you enter, state your point, and then exit without properly debating it.
Cody, I'm glad you used me as an example; I think it's important for people to know you don't play favorites. and, if it helps, I'm exactly the same way.
I'm utterly disgusted that someone actually told Cody to calm down. his anger with Tiff/her views is not only warranted, but he's one of the few logical, honest, and passionate ones posting.
I'm sure the two of us combined have been told much worse things than someone wanting to chop our pussy/balls off. even if not, you know what? that's part of life. if we don't learn to grow a thick skin, and have a positive self worth in spite of how we're perceived by others, that's no one's fault but our own.
there's nothing I can currently say that won't be beating a dead horse, but I'm absolutely sure that Cody and I won't back down anytime soon. if people can't take the heat, they oughta stay out of the kitchen.
The post was not about striking children. It was about different forms of discipline, and hitting is one with which I happen to disagree, as I've said many times here. The only reason I even brought up that example was because it was a rarity. But do I think it should be done? No! And to answer the question as to whether a child should hit back, yes, he should, because the adult was in the wrong! I never said it's acceptible either. I said it can happen, because we're all human beings, we all make mistakes, and yes, sometimes, we act out of fear! Perhaps, if I could see, it might be different. But in the back of my mind, there's always the thought of being responsible for the death of a child, due to something like this. I don't see what people are missing here! Yes, in a logical frame of mind, I would never hit the child, not even after he ran into the street! I would call him back, or grab him, to get his attention, and explain why he shouldn't do this. Fortunately, I live on a quiet street. So it very well could be that I would just call out to him to come back and then tell him that going into the street without me is a bad thing to do, since he could get hurt. But what if I lived near a highway, with cars wizzing by! I wouldn't be thinking "oh gee, I don't want to humiliate my son" I would be scared out of my mind! Even my own life would be in danger there, as I brought him to safety. And before anyone says anything, my own life would be the absolute farthest thing from my mind.
What posts have I made that are "purely, to any rational mind, complete and utter crockery"? Usually, I post on tech. Sometimes, I post my essays, but just because you don't believe in the same things as I do, they automatically become crockery"? I didn't know you held that kind of power! "If you continue to put up board posts insisting Bullfinch and Homer were composing true accounts of history, then I will continue to point out the shheer idiocy of that claim." When have I claimed that? When, in fact, have I discussed the connections between history and myth on this site? "Ideas like that are dangerous to a healthy society, and must be dealt away with." I agree that certain ideas are dangerous and should not be allowed, even in a free society, lest they cause civil unrest and violence. But most beliefs are acceptable in a republic, if they do not harm people. So tell me how on Earth my believing in The Gods is dangerous? I know that my right to express it openly would be stripped under military rule, whether it should be or not. But is not freedom of religion usually one of the basic rights in a country under democratic rule? The last time I checked, both of us lived in such a country.
Again, I do not agree with child abuse either, and believe in the strictest forms of punishments for those who commit it. But a single smack, one time in a child's life, is not abuse! I never, in my entire life, thought that I would be defending the hitting of a child. But I have to agree with jldiaz421. People scream "abuse" far too easily these days.
What we are missing is the reason your fear would manifest itself in a strike across the child's face. You have yet to explain this.
I myself, when I was a young child, ran out into the street, or rather a parking lot, and was nearly hit by a car. My mother, in trying to grab me, accidentally scratched my face with her fingernails. She did not strike me, she did not yell at me, she held me and sobbed as she wiped away the little droplets of blood that her nails had raised on my small face. Her fear manifested itself as tears and a pleading for me not to run away from her. I never did that again mind you, because I saw how it effected my mother.
Why, I beg of you, does your fear manifest itself in a strike across the child's face? I fail to understand how you can possibly think this is an acceptible course of action.
This is a purely hypothetical situation. It may not happen that way at all, in real life. I may do just what your mother did, grab my child, hold him close, cry and tell him never to do that again. My example was not meant to be an absolute. It was, rather, meant to show the one time when I *might* hit a child. Obviously, it's wrong, and it's not acceptable. I'm not sure why I'd do it, because I'm not even sure if I would. Hopefully, I would react in a better manner, as you've described. It is perfectly fine and I could support and understand any parent who did that.
The only reason why I am defending it in the first place is not because it's right. As I've said, it's not. It's just that it's not the abuse that some here are making it out to be. Even yelling could be taken as abuse. When you yell at your child to not do something, or because he has done something wrong, and you stop after a short time, that's normal. When you yell at him for every little thing he does, because it's not absolutely perfect, or constantly tell him he's ugly, you wish he was never born etc., that's abuse! it's the same with hitting. Yet some people are fine with a swat on the butt or a smack on the arm and not with one on the face. Biologically, the face is probably more delicate, so I can understand it that way. But if one form of hitting, even just one time, is considered abuse, why are not the others?
there you go again defending something (yelling, in this case), wich, even if done once, as with smacking across the face, doesn't teach the child any lessons. in fact, as with hitting him or her, it does nothing but display that they're far weaker than you, who can yell, and make them feel crappy.
if you truly didn't believe you'd hit anyone, why on earth even mention it being a possibility?
Perhaps, it's better that I let my child do whatever he wants, with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever! So he can get into all sorts of dangerous situations, can lie, cheat, steal, bully, act disrespectfully to those around him, have iced cream instead of food, etc. etc. No wonder there's such a problem with the youth today!
That's not at all what happy heart is suggesting. I think she is saying that all hitting, yelling and screaming do is demonstrate your power over the child.
exactly right, margorp.
Tiff, funny how you can sure dish it out when you aren't clear what someone means, rather than ask them for clarification. yet, when people question something you say, you become angry/defensive.
I' wasn't born yesterday, and knew perfectly well what you meant. My previous post was one of frustration with those who simply don't get it, no matter what I say, and who are hung up on one aspect of the entire essay, which wasn't even something that I recommended. When even normal yelling is considered abuse, wrong, etc. there's far too much political correctness in the air for my liking. Yes, teaching is key, and that does involve sitting down with your child and calmly explaining things. But what parent hasn't yelled at a child at least once? If all children were perfect little angels, who never did anything wrong, who never got on their parents' nerves, etc. then I'd agree that yelling is never justified. But it seems as if some here believe that no form of discipline or punishment is acceptable and that parents must also adhear to the model of perfection.
I know several parents who didn't yell at their children, and those children came out excellently. Yellling does nothing but close the child down. Its just like when people are screaming at you, you stop listening, its human reaction.
The thing you're still failing to understand is that you should know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you would never lay a hand on your child. No matter how scared you are, no matter how angry you are, no matter what that child did, you would never lay a hand in anger upon them. This is not what you've said in any of your posts. You continue to say that you would, in fear, possibly hit a child across the face. You keep backing away and trying to spin it in a new direction to try and make it look better than it is. That isn't going to work. The point of the matter is that you still defend the idea of even possibly hitting your child.
If you want this argument to end, you have to say, and accept, and mean, that in no circumstance whatsoever would you ever strike a child across the face. There should be absolutely no possibility of this ever happening. You're an adult, and you should be able to control your emotions enough that there would never be a risk of you doing that. However, though you've had this explained to you repeatedly, you still fail to grasp the issue.
I, too, know plenty of parents who haven't yelled at their children once. and, you know what? those children are the most respectful, compassionate, caring, happy, loving human beings one could ever meet.
no, not everyone is a yeller. yes, there are more productive ways to get points across to children.
and, lastly, just cause a parent is frustrated, doesn't mean they will or should yell.
I, for one, won't do so if I ever have kids, cause I know what it feels like to feel powerless and like others are above you. it won't matter what my child does; there's nothing that could cause me to hit him or her in the face, or yell. that isn't love.
ok, my goodness. What I find slightly amusing is that the three people who are most passionate about this argument have no kids. But that's besides the point.
I'm glad that Cody is once again defending his stance with a lot more articulation than resorting to wishing someone's uterus to be ripped out. lol. That was the reason I thought he should calm down. I frankly thought this topic would die down by now, but even I felt compelled to post again.
Because Tiff, you went back and said the same thing again. You defended the slap in the face. Well let's look at this from the perspective of someone who does, in fact have a kid at this point.
That would be me.
I have a kid and I would never touch his face. Tiff, the face is a complete nono when it comes to discipline because, yes it is biologically more vulnerable than most other parts of the body, but also, you don't wear anything on your face, do you? I dont' think it's ok to spank a kid by any means, but if you swat a kid on the butt through two or three layers of clothing, they won't feel it on their skin. I really can't support that argument any further though because I fail to see how hitting or yelling is a viable punishment or reaction in any circumstance.
But if you need any other reason for why you shouldn't touch your kids face, it is because a person uses their face as a form of identification. Everyone sees your face. I dont' exactly know how to articulate what I'm trying to say here, but a slap on the face is somehow much more humiliating than a light swat on a clothed behind.
I just dont' understand--I still dont' understand why, even if some don't see it as abuse, it seems to be acceptible to hit a kid. Why would you want to overpower your own flesh and blood like that? Why would yu want to instill that kind of fear in them.
There's a fine line between letting your kid get away with everything and refraning from using physical or verbal harshness against them to prove some sort of a point.
I want that poster who defended spanking to go ahead and elaborate on his or her thinking. Because just recently, a study was published that states that spanking or any kind of physical aggression is far from effective disciplin, and can indeed be detrimental to the kid's mental health in even the most minimal way.
My kid is at an age right now where he's mobile and loves to explore anything anywhere. Am I supposed to hit him out of fear when he touches a plugged electrical outlet or reaches out to the stove? I'm sorry, but I won't. I think it's more effective to convey the severity of the matter in a more constructive way.
When my siblings and I were young children, we were spanked as punishment. It was not frequent, and every time that a spanking occurred was not a punishment for something extremely bad. I only resent and hate one of my parents, and its for so much more than the hitting and yelling.
I can't say that spankings ever taught me a lesson. They only taught me not to do what warranted a spanking, regardless of whether I considered the action wrong or right. I don't feel they made me a better person, or saved my life.
I do not think there is ever a reason for an adult to hit, smack, or slap a child. Resorting to assault is not a healthy way of teaching a lesson or resolving conflict. And as everyone else has said here, yelling at someone and/or hitting them only demonstrates one's power over someone else and really only makes them feel shitty about themselves or scared.
I'll admit that my siblings and I made a game of making my parents yell when we became teens. We would have contests to see who would get yelled or swore at first on a given day. And sometimes, we would say stupid shit just to set our mother off. It was funny, and still is, because the smallest things set her off, and she can yell all the do-da-day, and no one will give a shit what she's going on about, but she doesn't realize it. It's sad, but amusing to see how easy it is to control her emotions.
Anyway, Eleni, hitting a child is wrong. It does not mater why or what the circumstances are. It is wrong because you are striking them out of fear or anger, and so it is only meant to hurt them because you yourself feel hurt. It's ludicrous to think that hitting anyone will teach them a lesson other than, don't do anything that would make me hit you.
write away, are you saying that those of us who don't yet have kids aren't fit to argue in parenting related discussions? I'm genuinely asking, cause if there's one thing I absolutely hate, it's when people advocate the stance that we don't have children, therefore, we don't know what we're talking about.
I do not think hitting/yelling at a child teaches him or her anything; it certainly didn't for me
it only made me resentful toward my parent and made me feel terrible about myself.
I do not have the answers as to how to properly raise/discipline a child because of how I was treated growing up; that's one of the many reasons I've chosen not to have any.
No, I don't think she was saying that, I think she was commenting on the irony. I too enjoy the irony of that situation.
The reason I am so vehement in my opinion on this issue is that my father was a big fan of spanking. My siblings and I were spanked for all sorts of things, and spanked to the point of sobbing. My father was an incredibly powerful man, and getting any type of physical assault from him was horrible. I remember how awful it made me feel, and that it never taught me anything. I swore at a young age that I would never hit my children.
I figured not, but wanted to make sure.
I was also spanked more times than I can count by the woman who gave birth to me, and other family members of hers, in addition to being yelled at by all of them just as much.
similarly to what Cody said, it made me swear at an incredibly young age to never, ever treat my children (or anyone else, for that matter) in that way.
unlike another poster, I'd argue that being raised as I was has taught me both how to parent, and how not to.
SilverLightning, it sounds as if your father was the type who should have gone to prison and been physically dealt with there, until he learned his lesson. I would never, for any reason, advocate that kind of treatment for a child, especially if you're so much bigger and stronger then them! I don't even advocate the kind of smacking that we're still discussing! As far as yelling, though, even Colonel Papadopoulos, who was, in my opinion, the most eloquent speaker in the history of modern Greek, yelled, and he was talking to adults! If I tried making speeches like he sometimes did, I'd probably lose my voice! Then again... considering the state of the nation today, maybe that does prove the point about yelling not working out in all cases. *smile* Seriously, though, I believe in nothing to excess. So while it's understandable for a parent, or even a national leader, to yell at times, it shouldn't be done constantly, or it will lose its' effectiveness. Honestly, I find the calm, even-toned, slow voice, that you just know is boiling with anger, to be far more effective than someone yelling at the top of his lungs.
Oh dear lord, you're comparing a national leader's yelling to a parent yelling at their children? I don't even know why I'm still trying to drill this point through your head, but I'll try once more.
Do you know who else yelled Tif, Hitler yelled, he yelled because his point was something that had to be yelled. Yelling, when everyone else is yelling, is a good thing. You ever notice if you go to a concert that everyone is yelling, that yelling is an expression of emotion. Its like when your on a slide, you say Wee, because its fun. The yelling of a public speaker is designed to raise the emotional state of the crowd. Not, and I'd like you to read this really really slowly so that you might possibly understand it, not I say, not, to punish them. Get that, not, let me know if I'm going too fast for you here, I'll stop and define a few words if you need me too, I don't mind.
Now, as I said, the yellling of a public speaker like your precious colonel, they yell to express emotion. They do not, there's that word again, yell to punish. When punishing, or rather reprimanding or disciplining a child, your emotion should not play a part in your actions. Again, notice that word not, I'm trying to use small words here for you, cuz you're either not reading, or not understanding.
So, and follow me on this Tif, cuz its gonna get a little complicated, no matter what you're feeling, whether its fear or sadness or anger, you can't let it effect your action with your kid. The only emotion, the only one, that word means that there's one emotion allowed Tif, I know this is complicated but hold on, I'm almost done, the only ONLY one that is allowed to effect the way you treat your child is your love for them. That's all Tif, the only one, that's all that's allowed, that one solitary emotion. Your fear and your anger must be taken out of your thoughts while you deal with your kids.
Now, did you get all that? Cuz you seem a little lost lately, need us to slow down and explain things in really small words? Cuz really, if you don't understand the difference between a public speaker yelling, and a parent yelling, I don't know what help we can give you. You're working on square one, we're a few squares ahead here. Don't you worry though, we'll do everything we can to get you up to speed. Now, what do you need defined?
I used Papadopoulos for a reason. He was a national saviour, not just a leader. Sometimes, adults need to be put in line just as much as children, particularly during a revolution like the 21st of April. So I do think it's valid, though of course, most of us are not on his intellectual level, and we don't have to deal with the issues of the state. I can just imagine. "You didn't fix the economy like I said you should! Go to your room!" No offence to our leaders, but that thought made me laugh.
Hitler was a man of hate and a maniac at that. I wouldn't use him for such an example. I am fully aware that yelling is not used as a form of punishment by national leaders, but is often used to excite the crowd, in order to get them to agree with the speaker. Yet this is not always true. Sometimes, when they're truly angry at a situation, they yell about it, not merely to gain the support of the crowd, but also to express their disagreement with the situation and/or to give orders. It's these cases that are similar to, though not the same as, the yelling done by parents.
And its that "not the same as" phrase which makes it completely unrelated. Its amazing how often things that aren't the same as are unrelated. Just one of those things I guess.
Let me rephrase then. Not exactly the same as. It's not that they're completely dissimilar.
But they are dissimilar. No leader, from plato to obama, has ever gotten up on a stage and yelled at their audience in order to punish them. They may yell at the government, or some political group, but that is in order to illustrate an ideal which they themselves hold. They do not yelll in order to punish the government or the political organization.
When hitler yelled about a final solution, he wasn't punishing the screaming germans in front of him. When Malcolm X yelled about racial inequality, he wasn't punishing the blacks who were standing in front of him. When a parent yells, it is to punish the child standing before them. This makes them completely different animals. The fact that you don't get that is also terrifying, that group is getting a bit overpopulated Tif.
Boy I just love watching people argue symantics.
chelsea, cody's right, I just commented on teh irony of it. If anything, I voiced my oppinion about child-rearing excessively before I had my own son. it actually helped me because I thought and reflected on what I would do given various situations and scenarios.
Once, my boyfriend's mom said something to the effect of "as a parent, a lot of the time you're flying by the seat of your pants--you do what you feel is best at the time. you don't worry about the things that might happen as a result, years down the line. you can't worry about that."
And I sat there and dropped my jaw incredulously.
Wow... no wonder my boyfriend isn't terribly close with his mom. lol
She also completely discounted a child's psychological well-being once they grow up. She says it's not her problem or her fault how her kids might fair in terms of their mental health as adults--it's for them to figure out. Maybe she didn't word it quite liek that--but hey. What a way to parent, huh? lol We just couldn't believe what she said because if anything, our child's psychological well-being in the present and his future are a top priority for us.
I'm getting off on a tangent, but you get my point I'm sure.
This is the issue. Is it just me or do parents sometimes feel that they can do what they want when they want just because they're parents?
Absolutely. It comes back to what everyone has been saying on this topic. Parents use their power and influence to persuade their children that they're always right. It's usually not that direct, but the most subtle things will stick with you for a lifetime. I guess it stems from the fact that society in general views children of being incapable of knowing right and wrong. When you're growing up, you spend most of your life being patronized by adults who don't think you have a right to your emotions, your opinions are worthless because you heard them from an adult's mouth first, and nothing you do matters until you turn 18.
No, what it stems from is the older generations disrespecting the yunger ones. Meanwhile, the yunger ones are told to respect the older one's or else. It's just bullshit.
Most of the time, when I've heard parents yell, it was either about a situation or when giving an order. The yelling, itself, was not the punishment, though they might occasionally yell while giving a punishment. If a parent says "I came home, and the dishes were dirty! I told you to do your homework and you went out and played with your friends instead," those are accusations, said in the form of yelling. If she then adds You're grounded for a week,", that's the reaction/punishment. What, then, is the difference if a leader says the educational system in the nation has declined to the point that our children are no longer learning! This is unacceptable! Therefore, I order that each school be tested and that higher standards be imposed for future teachers and for all schools!" It's not a punishment, exactly, but it certainly is a means of correction.
I do agree that sometimes, you do what you feel is best, and that sometimes, you regret things later in life. As Mom always says "you didn't come with notes". For one thing, I was blind, and not only had Mom never been a parent, but she had never lived with a blind person, and had to learn how to adapt the way she spoke and lived to better communicate and help me. For example, she couldn't say "get that over there", or put things in the middle of the room, because I might run into them and get hurt. But I completely disagree that you shouldn't care about the psychological well-being of your child, even once he is an adult. Real parents never stop being parents, and they never stop caring for their children. I, in turn, care for Mom, and when she's out of it, or when something's on her mind, I ask if she's okay. We confide in each other all the time. For the record, I was brought up to always speak my mind, and was treated with respect by my family. Mom would never say "because I said so" when I asked "why". She would always explain things to me, and ask my opinions on things.
Oh sweet jumping christmas jew on a pogo stick. Ok Tif, I'll explain it once again, but from now on I'm just referring you back to my earlier posts. I don't have time or inclination to educate you.
When a parent is yelling it is to demonstrate their power over the child. They are angry at the child because the child disobeyed them. This is a threat to their power as a parent, if the child doesn't obey them, they aren't much of a parent. So they yelll to reascert themselves as the dominant member of the organization.
When a political figurehead yells, it may stem from the same emotion of anger, but it is to inflame, not to establish dominance. When Malcolm X was yellling at a group of black people, he was trying to inflame in them the same anger he felt. He wanted them to be angry, to empower them. A parent is not trying to instill anger of an equal scale, the parent is trying to instill fear.
Its like this Tif. Lets sayy that you are coaching a soccer team. One of your players steals the ball and is flying down the field toward an empty net. You yell at the top of your lungs, trying to encourage your player, urging her to run faster, kick harder, and score the goal. You are being a leader.
Now, later in the game, one of your players punches another player in the face. This is, as far as I know, against the rules of soccer. You grab the player by the scruff of her neck and scream into her face that you told her the rules of soccer. You told her punching people in the face was strictly forbidden. You shout at her until you are blue in the face. You're furiously angry, and you want her to know that. By the time you are done, the girl is sobbing uncontrollably and you are out of breath. Then you kick her off the team, or bench her, or whatever. Now you are being a parent.
Are you seeing the difference yet? Cuz really, the next step up in clarity involves me tattooing it across your face, and I have terrible handwriting. If you don't get it this time, either read this post through again slower, or ask someone else. I just don't really care enough to explain something so simple repeatedly.
What about when giving orders? The colonels never said "could you please do this for us?" They said "we decide and we order" and then made their demands. Is that not showing authority? This is a silly example, but "we decide and we order! You cannot eat in the sittingroom!" Granted, a parent wouldn't add the intro. He would just say "don't eat in the sittingroom" and may add something like "or I'll take away your video game". But the colonels didn't need to qualify their orders with punishments. You knew damned well that, if one of them said not to do something, and you did and were caught, you'd get in trouble. Reading and/or distributing Communistic materials, for example, was a sure way to get yourself arrested.
Take these two speeches. In this first one, Colonel Papadopoulos isn't just trying to make the teachers understand his point, though of course, that's a big part of it. He genuinely seems angry, more so then in any other speeches that I've been able to find so far. I haven't yet lerned Katharevousa, but I understood enough to piece together what was going on. He was telling them to look in the mirror at themselves and then talking against things going on in the schools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=epLtpi1uhAc
In this second one, he's not yelling, but is still projecting his voice for emphasys. This is his apology (meaning defence) in court, and is his normal way of making points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=gJu6U29hoGM
Just for reference, this is his completely normal speaking voice. There's no emphasys and no anger here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=wCG4hhZrVD4
As for regular politicians, though, they usually don't give orders, so their yelling really is to win people over to their side.
Wow! All of that, again, over a single comment! Maybe, at some point, we can begin to discuss the essay?
Sorry, but I agree with Silver lightning on this one. The only reason anyone yells is to assert power. Take something as simple as, "you stepped on my toe and now I'm pissed!"
Actually, I think SilverLightning was saying that parents yell to assert power but that leaders yell in order to win people to their side, to encourage people to do the right thing. In most cases, I agree, but was pointing out a few exceptions.
If you can point out anywhere where I said they yell to win people over to their side, then you can believe that. I said they yell to inflame emotion. Those are animals of completely different spots.
And you can command without yellling Tif. In fact is the military officers who don't yell that are more respected than those that do. Case in point really..
Oh, and we did discuss the essay. The general idea is that most of it was acceptible, except the part about striking a child in the face out of fear. Remove that piece and say, "Never under any circumstances would I hit a child in the face, I was mistaken in my thinking", and the issue will be over. You just haven't done that yet.
Cody is absolutely right about officers. Unless one of our crew people has to be heard over a boat's motor, in which case you would say they raised their voice.
And, I have never struck my daughter in the face, nor would I.
It wouldn't teach her anything anyway.
I don't support violence against children, except if older children are physically attacking their parents, then their parents may use force to restrain them. An example of this could be a thireteen-year-old who wants to go out and take drugs with some older men she has met. She may be pushing her mum away from the door. Her mum may pull her away from the door and hit her back after being hit. This isn't the same as finding out your child has gone out and taken drugs with older men, then responding to that by battering the child.
Having said that, I think some parents may respond physically out of pannick when confronted by a child doing something that could result in the child being harmed within seconds, such as running into a road, putting their fingers into a burning fire. If a child is running into a road, the parent may grab them to pull them back and may give the child a slap. Where ever the slap is it isn't nice. If this is done out of panick as a reaction that happened before the parent could think rationally, that is different than the parent thinking "because my child ran into the road, I'm going to smack his face".
Different, yes, ok, no. Reacting out of fear is not ok. Grabbing a child to stop them from running into the road is alright, it usually does not cause harm, and what harm it does cause was not intentional. However, any hitting that goes on would be done after the child was out of danger. This is abusive, unnecessary, and cruel. I understand that the parent is terrified, and I sympathize, but terror does not give you the right to strike a child across the face. Or, as I'm sure some people will then think, do I think it is right to hit them anywhere else.
Think of the message that sends. In simple terms you are telling the child, "I am afraid you were going to be hurt, so now I'm going to hurt you." That doesn't even make sense to a reader, let alone a child. Why would you present your child with such a falicy of logic?
Thank you, Senior, for understanding my point! Neither of us have said that it's okay, or that it should be done. But we agree that it may be done as a reaction of panic and fear.
And by "may", I don't mean that it's an excuse for it, but that it could possibly be done for that reason.
Of course it could. I was hit when I was a child and it was usually because they just got angry because I was beeing a "stupid kid." I heard the words "stupid kid" a great deal back then.
me too, and a lot worse.
So anger and even fear have always been accepted tools. Both in parenting and in controling society as a whole.
You guys think I'm a monster? Wait until you read this!
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-candidate-is-favor-of-the-death-penalty-for-kids-cites-biblical-passages
I don't even think Xrysi Avgi would go that far! What the hell is that about? Killing children because they don't have discipline? 1. Where is your's to even consider such a thing? 2. How can anyone learn anything if they're dead? This man needs to be sterilised immediately and prohibited from even talking to children! Better yet, stick him on an island where he can't talk to anyone, and let him kill himself!
And yet, somebody will allow it to happen. People are sick.
Oh dear Gods I hope not! The fact that someone like this is even in politics is scarey enough!
While the article has an eye-catching (no pun intended) headline, causes one to think, I am as convinced of he objectivity and veracity of this article as I am of an article written by concservatives mug-slinging their democrat rivals.
If - and I have not read any further on this - this philosophy is true, then that's pretty sick. From a mainstream Christian viewpoint, the laws outlined in Deutoronomy were given solely to the people of Israel, and as such this candidate should stop eating pork, too. From a political standpoint, I can appreciate his candor, even if it's political suicide.
well said to the last poster; I strongly suspect this article is a bunch of nonsense written only for someone's political gain. nothing more.
Well I'll not be smacking a child on any part of there body that might bruse or break something. However, I do believe in spanking a child up to about age 10 or so.
Screaming does no good, and spanking is handed out when you need to get a childs attenchen not after he or she has almost gotten hurt. That is when you need explaining and teaching.
In my house I am boss, just like in the military. The rules are set so that everyone, including the child, gets respected, loved, and kept safe.
If an older child, and this is usually teen boys, decides to physically attack me I'm sorry, but he gets knock down. Hopefully before that happens we've established that respect that goes for everyone and the love and sharing, so at the teen age we can simply talk about a thing.
We are parents are totally responsible for what our kids do, so we have no choice but to set the law.
Slapping a child in the face as a reaction is never correct. A parent should not react, but think, teach, with love, and kindness.
This whole I am the boss end of story atitude does not go to far and unfortunately doesn't always get the parent respect. Keep trying, I say.
No. Children will decide what kind of people there going to be after about age 10. No matter how you go about it, providing it was not abusive, you might lose.
Trueer words were never spoken on the matter.
When dealing with children, I do agree that they need to see parents as authority figures, even if they're very close ones. But I do hope that you don't treat your spouse like that, forereel. Unless we're dealing with martial law, or a work situation, I have an issue with anyone telling me that he's my boss. Obviously, I'm not your partner, and she may feel differently, but that did strike me when reading this.
Treat my child like what? Explain?
Like you're an authority figure, and your child needs to listen to you, ask permission to do things etc.
I am the boss yes. I'm not a tirant, but I am the boss.
In relationships it's not that simple, I am sorry no one is going to be the boss no matter how strongly you feel, even with children.
I guesss, I am very much nice but strict with kids. I guess I like the teaching and caring styles used by dumbledore and lupin in the harry Potter books and stuff like that that's why I've always adored them. but anyhow, I tend to be more like molly and minerva when it actually comes down to actual doing it, I am much more severe. and I do a lot more lecturing, and stuff like that, that's what I grew up with. I guess I agree you should put reasons in to it, my parents never did and told me what a shame I was yeah, typical asian I am going to yell at you and tell you how stupid, useless, and lazy you are. see, I am pretty Mcgonagallish when it comes to discipline, but very molly like when it comes to caring and doting over kids and such. and very sirius like when it comes to what I am okay with. but I think ideally I agree in the disappointment and self realization formulas. with how say with Remus in the Harry Potters he just kind of told them the reason, maybe tell them the basics how disappointed he was and just kind of leaving. I kind of believe in that, sometimes it doesn't take a lot, just make them realize expectations, and how much you care and why you're so disappointed because how irrational those choices were. and even in the book and it's true I've felt it with the couple people who've used it on me, how guilty Harry felt even if he didn't yell.
wow, that sounded crazy.
talk about lack of proper punctuation use, not to mention her views.
And that's only the beginning!
I'm half-Asian myself. There are definitely times I wish mom had just said she was disappointed in me and kept her temper under control. How difficult is it to come up with alternatives to screaming and smacking? She may have grown up with those, but that's no excuse. All that did was make me feel like I could never communicate openly with her about mother-daughter things. Who wants to have a trusting relationship with a person who left psychological scars even if they don't remember what the hell you're referring to when you bring it up, say, 15 to 20 years after the fact? we talk, but I can't go to her with anything. if I got upset as a child, all I remember is her yelling at me to be quiet, stop crying, etc. My feelings were never validated. That's crushing to a five or six-year-old.
in all relationships, including parent and child, it's a two-way street. How is it okay to sit there and say, through the action of smacking the child, "I'm doing this because I love you. cry it out. You'll get over it." Where's the sense in that? That won't make a kid respect you. sure, they'll listen, but only because they're afraid of you. From the time they're born, if you never raised a hand to them until they're old enough to, 'know better," then out of the blue, you do it because they've done something dangerous, that stays with them, especially if it's something you stick with because you notice the child is obeying you, but obeying you out of fear. Hitting doesn't teach anything except bullying. How can one use spanking as a form of discipline in the home, send the kid off to school, then expect him or her not to hit other kids smaller than them when things don't go their way? i'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen. Consistency is the key. Teach them not to hit others by not doing it to them. Parents are a child's first role model. Children learn what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior from their caregivers. If there's anything I've taken away from my experience with corporal punishment, it's: respect your child and they will learn to respect you. I was taught the wrong way of gaining a child's respect. On an emotional level, she has very little of mine.
I don't confide in her. It's quite sad, but I can't change what happened, only learn from it and pray I never raise a hand or my voice to children out of frustration and anger.
I come from an Itallian family. I can some up my family in one word:
disfunctional. I have learned not to fully trust my family. It's sad but true. Believe me, people have had it far worse than I have but I post this to shed some light.
While I don't discount that certain cultures are tougher or stricter, that's certainly not all there is to it. Any family can be dysfunctional, regardless of their race or culture.
Oh I agree completely.