DescentBB

vision wrote:Great advice, if you want to be restricted to a world where morality is defined by physical pain. Lake of Fire anyone? How's that biblical morality working out for us?

Nice try, except that I never once said it had to be physical, and I don't buy into that lake of fire nonsense any more than you do. I just said it had to be painful or uncomfortable. The 'punishment' people seem to prefer these days is neither.

I also said my parents probably went overboard. I don't particularly like corporal punishment, but I do think that a good ass whuppin' is called for on occasion, when it's needed, because sometimes you just can't reason with a person using logic, bribes, or threats.

My one ass whoopin' sure straightened me out. I never broke my parent's trust ever again and I was happier for it. But my sister never did learn. She was always a rebel and she always fought parental authority. Sometimes even pain won't stop a rebellious soul. I'm convinced that these types of kids don't WANT to learn and no amount of pain will straighten them out, until they mature and learn from life's school of hard knocks, which is sometimes years into adulthood. Today, she's a good mother to 2 nice girls of her own.

MD-1118 wrote:...I do think that a good ass whuppin' is called for on occasion, when it's needed, because sometimes you just can't reason with a person using logic, bribes, or threats.

Why isn't passive resistance listed along with logic, bribes, or threats?

passive resistance as a form of discipline for kids?

then you get this.

When you have kids Vision, you're going to look back on today and go 'holy ★■◆● I was completely wrong'.

vision wrote:Why isn't passive resistance listed along with logic, bribes, or threats?

Mainly because from everything I've read about passive resistance, it's used against those in authority, not by those in authority.

Actually I'm pretty sure in some instances you could say it's used by those in authority (coughcoughgovernment), but that's due to incompetence, and that's really not a signal you want to be sending to your kids.

tunnelcat wrote:Sometimes even pain won't stop a rebellious soul. I'm convinced that these types of kids don't WANT to learn and no amount of pain will straighten them out, until they mature and learn from life's school of hard knocks, which is sometimes years into adulthood.

There's bound to be some for whom corporal punishment doesn't work, sure, but there are other methods. If your kid isn't phased by getting switched, maybe you should try telling him a story instead.

Poe's law, by the way.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suggest you look elsewhere for reasons that 70% of black moms are single. Try a welfare system that would not pay ADc unless there was no father/husband in the home. Thanks to the Democrats there is now a self replicating system of keeping black children fatherless, poverty as a given and a segment of voters more securely chained to the plantation than ever before.

hmmm, how come my daughter got welfare bennies for 3 months, with husband in household?

With all your money that you boast about, why would your daughter have to be on welfare?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suggest you look elsewhere for reasons that 70% of black moms are single. Try a welfare system that would not pay ADc unless there was no father/husband in the home. Thanks to the Democrats there is now a self replicating system of keeping black children fatherless, poverty as a given and a segment of voters more securely chained to the plantation than ever before.

hmmm, how come my daughter got welfare bennies for 3 months, with husband in household?

With all your money that you boast about, why would your daughter have to be on welfare?

because she is not in receipt of any money(for a lot of reasons) and was living hundreds of miles away at the time. Snarky remarks don't answer my question, now do they? Now, I wouldn't expect you to grasp how you don't just get money in your name at birth, and how said money can be withheld from you if your actions warrant it(hers did), but at the time, she was living on a $10,000 per annum stipend from me, and hubby had lost his job. As I said, they got food, cash, housing bennies for the 3 months they needed it. Oh, and by the way, she STILL is out of the money loop due to how she chooses to conduct her life.

slick, there are lots of "welfare" type programs and some of them do pay the mother more if she is a single mother.

I had some young co workers in a restaurant I worked in who bragged to each other how much money they will get when they have their 3rd child.

Grandma raises them because they are unfit mothers (in Grandma's opinion) so they give grandma a little bit of the government money and they party on the rest living in moms house (mom is a party girl too).

One of them told me she was giving her notice as soon as she squeezed out her 3rd baby (her words) because the checks would be big enough that she doesn't need the job anymore. Add to it the unemployment check she would be getting and she was going to get a car...

Way to set the bar higher huh?

Girl had aspirations. And we get the bill for it. You get to demagogue her poor situation to raise contributions for your party...

Will Robinson wrote:Girl had aspirations. And we get the bill for it. You get to demagogue her poor situation to raise contributions for your party...

actually, most Dems and, for that matter, most sensible people I know regardless of affiliation know that there are SOME issues with SOME programs. The major ideological difference is that those to the middle and left realize that a lot of people in the nation legitimately need assistance.

Well…welfare, SNAP, AFDC, TANF…the list goes on…A regular alphabet soup that is hard to keep up with.

In 1996 AFDC was eliminated and replaced with TANF.

Read up on the criticism of the AFDC program if you are so inclined.

All I know for a fact is…when I lived in North Philly back in the 60s getting the father out of the house during the social workers visits was a really big deal, because you could lose benefits.

My opinion is…the damage is already done, regardless of how many reforms have been made. I remember after reform the number of teenage pregnancies began to fall, then after a period of time started to rise again.

I don’t keep current on this issue anymore, but I do remember the information I had when I did…and I truly believe in my heart of hearts that poorly implemented social programs (note not social programs) began the mess in the first place, or at the very least had a significant impact. A statistic I can recall from memory is…in 1920 the illegitimacy rate was less than 1%. (yes it’s an outdated term)

As I have stated before, I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the family remained intact throughout all of human history, suddenly breaks down in the age of the social program.

Spidey wrote:Well…welfare, SNAP, AFDC, TANF…the list goes on…A regular alphabet soup that is hard to keep up with.

but, as you note below, they eliminated AFDC because of the issues Woody and Will talk about. That was nearly two decades ago, so no longer an issue. As for the rest of the programs in place, virtually all are in place because of very real needs.

All I know for a fact is…when I lived in North Philly back in the 60s getting the father out of the house during the social workers visits was a really big deal, because you could lose benefits.

gee, guess what? That was 50 years ago, and laws can have unintended consequences. Later fixed, so what's the issue?

As I have stated before, I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the family remained intact throughout all of human history, suddenly breaks down in the age of the social program.

if you are going to look at that timeline through ideological lenses, one can also peg the decline to the rearrangement of our economy such that two working parents were required to stay above water. That led to child rearing by proxy(day care etc), absolute dependance upon public schools to perform basic functions that the home provided(further weakening the educational system). I tend towards that view....it wasn't the social programs, it was the greed and repressed wages that led to the decline.

So you missed the part about the damage already being done…of course you did.

callmeslick wrote:if you are going to look at that timeline through ideological lenses, one can also peg the decline to the rearrangement of our economy such that two working parents were required to stay above water. That led to child rearing by proxy(day care etc), absolute dependance upon public schools to perform basic functions that the home provided(further weakening the educational system). I tend towards that view....it wasn't the social programs, it was the greed and repressed wages that led to the decline.

Good point, but it doesn't explain illegitimacy.

no, I didn't miss it, I simply didn't address it. I don't think that taking the attitude that it is 'already done' is sound. That precludes trying to fix it for the future. That attitude is common today, failing to comprehend that stuff like this, and education and economic reform(among many other topics) consists of laying a groundwork for a better future for generations to come.

What is this "no longer an issue" nonsense?
They may have shuffled the letters in the names of the programs but they still pay enough to promote 'perpetual' (generational legacy) dependency.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:if you are going to look at that timeline through ideological lenses, one can also peg the decline to the rearrangement of our economy such that two working parents were required to stay above water. That led to child rearing by proxy(day care etc), absolute dependance upon public schools to perform basic functions that the home provided(further weakening the educational system). I tend towards that view....it wasn't the social programs, it was the greed and repressed wages that led to the decline.

Good point, but it doesn't explain illegitimacy.

illegitimacy in the US was previously addressed in three fashions(would need tons of links to give historical info, but feel free to study further):
1. abortions(just because it wasn't a medical procedure, didn't mean it wasn't pretty common)
2. forced sterilization and isolation of unwed mothers
3. forced adoption under very hush-hush conditions.

just as with so many issues, we, in this day and age, don't jam problems in the closet. You simply never saw the issue in the past. Want to discuss the breakdown of the family unit? Study up on some of the folks that settled the American west, or, for that matter, the wholesale destruction of families that provided the pool of indentured servants in Colonial America.

Will Robinson wrote:What is this "no longer an issue" nonsense?
They may have shuffled the letters in the names of the programs but they still pay enough to promote 'perpetual' (generational legacy) dependency.

well, I was referring to one program(AFDC), but if you think public assistance is the ticket to a carefree existence, you are just plumb crazy.

Well, you may be correct on damage already being done is not permanent, good luck on that.

Yea, I know all about the third example…that is why my family ended up in poverty, my grandmother got herself pregnant and refused to “go away” (if you truly know what you are talking about, you will get that reference) and was cut off of the family tree like just so much dead wood…sent east with a bit of cash and forgotten about.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Girls were expected to 'disappear' for sometimes a few years. In a simlar male example, that is why my branch of the paternal line is as well off as we are. My great uncle was a drinker and gambler, got cut off with a stipend and the entire estate went to my grandmother. Countless families made such ruthless decisions, back in the day.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What is this "no longer an issue" nonsense?
They may have shuffled the letters in the names of the programs but they still pay enough to promote 'perpetual' (generational legacy) dependency.

well, I was referring to one program(AFDC), but if you think public assistance is the ticket to a carefree existence, you are just plumb crazy.

I never implied it is a carefree existence though did I?

I implied it is a detriment to the sucess and happiness of those who take the easy way out. And beyond any effects of white injustice there are policies and excuses for behavior causing the breakdown....

And I find it extremely difficult to have you try to criticize us for citing these programs and policy for the negative effect they have in shaping the lives of so many when in this very thread, when it is your money, and about someone you love, you have no trouble seeing the negative aspect of just throwing money at the problem!

Irony? Hypocrisy? I don't know but it smells really bad.

Will Robinson wrote:I never implied it is a carefree existence though did I?

I implied it is a detriment to the sucess and happiness of those who take the easy way out.

and, what I've been gently trying to imply is that is not really getting one 'out' of anything, easy or otherwise.

And beyond any effects of white injustice there are policies and excuses for behavior causing the breakdown....

actually, the bulk of this thread is about a woman's response to seeing her son behave in a disgraceful manner. You seem bent on some sort of tangent around welfare, etc.

And I find it extremely difficult to have you try to criticize us for citing these programs and policy for the negative effect they have in shaping the lives of so many when in this very thread, when it is your money, and about someone you love, you have no trouble seeing the negative aspect of just throwing money at the problem!

I have no problem with the concept of helping those that need help. It isn't so much throwing money at a problem individual(my daughter's example), but to people with genuine need, often due to NO fault of their own.

Irony? Hypocrisy? I don't know but it smells really bad.

maybe it's you?

vision wrote:

You can raise kids without physical punishment or resorting to psychological trauma. It probably takes more patience than most people have, but I'm lucky in that department because I have tons of it.

The question would be, what happens when your patience finally wears out because the kids utterly reject your rules and continuously get into trouble that then costs you money to fix things?

woodchip wrote:The question would be, what happens when your patience finally wears out because the kids utterly reject your rules and continuously get into trouble that then costs you money to fix things?

Is that when you are supposed to hit them? Because I've never once had the urge to hit a child. Ever. I'll have to take your word for it, because I guess I've never lost that much patience with my own.

I hate to do it, because I disagree with him so often... but I agree with vision on this one. You don't have to use corporal punishment to raise children well.

It's harder... because it takes away your license to react in anger but in a sense it's simple: You use natural consequences as much as possible, you make them participate in remedying wrongs done, and you take away privileges that they value.

I'm not going to call the video "assault" or "abuse" - because it doesn't pass the "I'll know it when I see it" [namely, he's obviously more than capable of defending himself if he was in fear] test - but I'm also not going to necessarily call it necessary. Here's what I think she did right: she took control of the situation, stopped her son's bad behavior, and communicated clearly to him that it wasn't an acceptable thing to do. Only time will tell how he will react...

What works as effective parenting depends on the child.

A lot of people have ideas coming into parenting -- "yeah, I'll spank my kid, it worked for me" or "I'll never spank my kid" -- but those ideas can go right out the window once you have an actual child, with an actual personality and actual ways they respond to various forms of discipline and training. I know some kids for whom a light spanking is a huge motivator, and others for whom it'll just make their psychological breakdown last longer. I know kids in the same family with the same parents who are totally different in terms of what works for correcting their behavior, and I've seen a lot of the psychological research and had a lot of training (as a teacher) in terms of how these differences necessitate adjusting to your child. (Generally speaking, if a child has suffered physical abuse, spanking will be less effective as a parenting tool -- better for causing fear than for actually affecting behavior.)

[mod] Discussion of parenting is one thing. Taking personal shots at another's parenting is another.

"Don't make me come in there again."

[/mod]

---------

I'll second Lothar's point about the fact that it depends somewhat on the child, but with the cavéat that in my experience, spanking is very rarely an effective tool long-term (it's really only effective for short-term compliance), and it's never the best one.

For reference, my experience with it as a child was varied (my parents were always clear about the reasons, and were never abusive, but I had schoolteachers who used it inappropriately). My wife and I don't use it at all with our son.

I find it interesting that most people here seem to think that physical punishment can be warranted at times, and may even be necessary, yet vision is unwilling to accept that it is ever anything aside from uncivilised bad parenting for idiots and morons. His words, not mine.

It's not always the best measure to use. I never said that, and I don't think anyone else did either. It is, however, acceptable at times. No single method will always work without fail.



To change the topic ever so slightly, what do you all think of psychological punishment and manipulation in parenting?

MD-1118 wrote:To change the topic ever so slightly, what do you all think of psychological punishment and manipulation in parenting?

If you need manipulation, you're doing it wrong. Parent and child have a teacher/student relationship. Most of the time the parent is the teacher, but sometimes the student. You earn trust and respect with patience, honestly, and love, and with that, you become an authority worth eagerly following. Never a need for violence and manipulation. I've never once considered it.

The more I read this thread the sadder I get for humanity.

If you're thinking of it in terms of "punishment", you're doing it wrong. Consequences are important, and incentives matter, but you're dealing with a kid, not a criminal.

Likewise with "manipulation". Psychology is important. As a parent, it's worth learning about things like PBIS and CBT, and learning ways to reframe conversations, to remove negative rewards and replace them with positive rewards, etc. But you're dealing with a kid, not an adversary.

Well since half the conversation got ganked, I started to think whether or not I should post my viewpoint here; or where the conversation ended up. I chose here because I'm okay with sharing it here.

Vision: I have a unique and personal perspective on both step-parenting and child abuse. One because I had a stepfather (who did nothing to earn the moniker; he was a glorified babysitter, don't kid yourself) like yourself and two; I was a victim of child abuse when I was younger.

You want to know what child abuse is?

Child abuse is leaving a kid in a truck for three hours while the father goes into the bar and comes out completely wasted, drives home drunk with two kids inside and gets into a wreck. Six times.
Child abuse is beating a kid so badly he doesn't talk until he's three years old; and the first thing to come out is a wall of tears in front of a child psychologist.
Child abuse is leaving two kids inside a house for an entire day to fend for themselves while the father goes off and does the neighbors' wife.

So seeing a mother come out and smack her son while trying to get him to pay attention to her isn't even close to child abuse.

I am often disappointed by the hijacking of terminology when it relates to parenting, discipline, etc. For example, giving a kid a spanking (ie, inflicting mild pain on a part of the body that's remarkably difficult to actually injure) is referred to as "hitting", thereby bringing in the connotation of attempting to cause injury or incapacitation.

My mother was fired from her public school job for "pushing" a kid. What she actually did was put her hand on the shoulder of a five-year-old student to guide him back into line while his mom was still waiting to sign him out. But when we accept the intentional distortion of one bit of terminology, it's easy to fall into the trap of accepting similar distortion for other terminology.

There are people who beat their children. There are people who spank their children. There are people who verbally abuse their children. There are people who verbally correct their children. And there are people who don't particularly guide or educate their children in any way. We do a disservice to ourselves when we fail to distinguish these.

Ferno wrote:So seeing a mother come out and smack her son while trying to get him to pay attention to her isn't even close to child abuse.

I'm sorry about your upbringing, but you and others are still drawing an arbitrary line on how you define abuse. It's like saying the Iraq War wasn't really a war because it only killed a quarter million people when World Wars I and II killed many, many millions. We accept that woman wailing on her son as "Ok" because we are socially insensitive to it. Time to change that. Time to grow up as a culture.

I don't say this to minimize your suffering, but to highlight the suffering of others.

You do want to handle your children. You do want to control them to some degree. You don't want to use them. I think manipulation in this sense is a neutral enough word to use, and in that light is acceptable. One could argue that the 'threat' (promise or assurance, if 'threat' isn't to your liking) of any sort of negative consequence of an action is in itself manipulation to dissuade one from taking that action.

I think manipulating your children by misleading them or verbally, emotionally, or physically abusing them is wrong. You shouldn't lie to your kids and rule them through fear of you and your responses to what they say or do. It's detrimental to building trust between the two of you.

I think manipulating your children by teaching them that actions have consequences, and helping them to understand what both the actions and the consequences are, and why they exist, and how to avoid both the actions and consequences, is right. You should teach them what is acceptable and what isn't, and lead them through example.

A large portion of how much explaining you can expect to be understandable and retainable by the child depends on their mentality. You can explain a stovetop is hot to a two year old all day and probably not get anywhere, for example. They won't have the cognitive capacity to understand your caring, rational exposition on thermodynamics and the potential damage of heat transfer to the largest human organ. They will likely understand the pain they feel on touching the eye, however, as they will likely understand the pain or discomfort they feel when you slap their hand away from it, or give them a worried or upset tongue-lashing. As they grow older, they will become more capable of understanding and retaining your explanations for why they should avoid certain words and actions, provided they aren't mentally handicapped in some way. They will also become more capable of manipulating you.

Granted, they are children, but this doesn't absolve them from all wrongdoing. It doesn't make them perfect, reasonable little angels. It doesn't make them your equals in every way. And it certainly doesn't make them incapable of being contrary, irrational, selfish punks.

People are not born good or bad, but with the capacity for both, and while environment and treatment play a significant role in how a child develops, it cannot be taken as the end-all be-all of how they will turn out. Kids will do what they want to do no matter what - it's up to you to discern what actions and words you need to guide them into wanting what's best for them. If all you ever need is patience and a gentle or kind but stern word, good for you, but that isn't always enough. Sometimes physical dissuasion is necessary, and just because you personally have never needed it doesn't mean you should go around telling people they are abusive, bad parents, idiots, or morons for using it or condoning it.

vision wrote: I'm sorry about your upbringing, but you and others are still drawing an arbitrary line on how you define abuse. It's like saying the Iraq War wasn't really a war because it only killed a quarter million people when World Wars I and II killed many, many millions. We accept that woman wailing on her son as "Ok" because we are socially insensitive to it. Time to change that. Time to grow up as a culture.

I don't say this to minimize your suffering, but to highlight the suffering of others.

I'm not sorry. It's part of my past and nothing can change it.

But it's really hard to see how abuse is in anyway related to a war. I think my "arbitrary line" is pretty reasonable, much like how the the law (our much much larger parent) has varying degrees of punishment; from a small fine to a suspended sentence to years in jail. It's all a matter of degree and judgement. You wouldn't give a person ten years in jail for graffiti, much like you wouldn't give a kid a time-out if he caused a lot of property damage.

If the way she hit her son to get him out of the street so he wouldn't take rocks to a gunfight is the same way she gets him to brush his teeth and do his homework then she is abusive. And a bad parent.

Chances are she is because in the street example of her methods her attempt to use words to get the result she wanted was short and she took it to the next level with ease.

But we don't know that for sure.

So in my mind I can't call her abusive. I wouldn't hire her as a baby sitter but what she did in the street shouldn't get her a visit from Child a Protective Services. At least not until they identify all the other kids there and visit their parents for NOT showing up to stop them.

vision wrote:

Ferno wrote:So seeing a mother come out and smack her son while trying to get him to pay attention to her isn't even close to child abuse.

I'm sorry about your upbringing, but you and others are still drawing an arbitrary line on how you define abuse. It's like saying the Iraq War wasn't really a war because it only killed a quarter million people when World Wars I and II killed many, many millions. We accept that woman wailing on her son as "Ok" because we are socially insensitive to it. Time to change that. Time to grow up as a culture.

I don't say this to minimize your suffering, but to highlight the suffering of others.

You want a definitive, clear definition on abuse? It's threatening the safety of the child. I'm in the same boat as you in terms my personal use of corporal punishment - but I think you need to give others a bit of latitude to use their own methods. Here's the bottom line for me: Going too far means acting out of anger and not out of love. Not going far enough means failing to teach the connection between our actions and the consequences that follow.

To Lothar's point: if you're looking to teach in love, then you're going to find what works for a particular child without hurting them (emotionally or physically).

One more thing to add:

I personally have issue with lightly defining abuse or neglect... because I've seen the real thing and I've seen its effects, and it breaks my heart. If you want to focus your attention on child abuse go after the people that lock their kids in the basement, or starve them, or cover them in bruises and burn marks - because it's still out there and it still happens.

Keep in mind the difference between teaching a kid with words to change behavior versus teaching them with blunt force to achieve the same end is the same lesson Dr King preached about when he taught his followers to use peaceful protest versus the kind of tactics the thugs in Baltimore used throwing rocks at people and burning the city down.

It makes me think *if* someone was going to get shot on that motel balcony it was the wrong someone....just a couple feet to the left and its a totally different world today...



How many additional people did that peckerwood kill with that one bullet and the resulting butterfly effect?
Freddie Gray? Travon Martin? A thousand others? Two thousand? Ten thousand?