|
Post by captainhooker on Apr 2, 2009 17:20:19 GMT -5
A quick swat on the tush never harmed anyone. Psychology is better. When our boys were toddlers there was a steep decline into a wooded area at the back of our house. My wife, who has a graduate degree in psychology, would advise the boys, "If you don't stop doing that right now, I'll throw you down the hill." It was pretty effective, and demonstrates the value of a good education. LOL - thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 2, 2009 17:33:21 GMT -5
I'd like to add, although I don't plan on getting too far into this conversation, that I understand the difference between swatting, smacking, spanking, hitting, etc. I also understand the idea behind "you should never hit a child in anger" or as a reactionary thing. Which always begged the question to me: So it's better to deliver a calculated, purposeful act of violence (which it is, regardless of how light you do it or how small it is)? That's somehow demonstrates a better state of mind? Because if you think about it, that seems almost more disturbing than losing your temper. Purposefully choosing to hit in a calm and collected fashion doesn't seem right to me either.
And as far as reasoning with small children goes, there are lots of things parents hit for that they could have solved by either child proofing their home, putting out of reach or otherwise dealing with the child differently. Hitting a kid for doing some things a kid does naturally doesn't really teach her anything, except to avoid getting hit. Whether all of us who got spanked or not are no worse off for it doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to look for better parenting techniques.
But, as I said, I'm not going to get too deep into this conversation. Just a little more food for thought, I guess. And I'm also not trying to say that those who spank their kids are monstrous parents.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 2, 2009 18:50:46 GMT -5
I'm not saying, "be negligent," I'm saying that, sometimes experience is the best teacher. I touched a hot thing ONCE -- after that, I didn't. I eventually became a welder, some people just don't learn. When my dad was a kid living in Holland he accidentally burned down a wheat field just after the war playing with gunpowder and matches. His dad turned on the stove, stuck my fathers hand on it and told him that if he ever played with matches again he would hold his hand on longer. Perhaps not the best parenting technique in the world, but apparently it was pretty damn effective.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Apr 2, 2009 19:04:07 GMT -5
Things my mom let me learn 'by experience': "Go ahead, eat that. But if you have diarrhea tomorrow, you still have to go to school." That's cold as ice.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 2, 2009 19:09:38 GMT -5
I was giving my mom a hard time about eating all of my Halloween candy, because, HEY, it was my candy and I was gonna eat it! ALL OF IT! In one night. My mom was sick of arguing with me and ended up just letting me do it, and I ate all of it. I had a bad stomachache for a few days. I didn't do that again.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 2, 2009 20:07:34 GMT -5
I was giving my mom a hard time about eating all of my Halloween candy, because, HEY, it was my candy and I was gonna eat it! ALL OF IT! In one night. My mom was sick of arguing with me and ended up just letting me do it, and I ate all of it. I had a bad stomachache for a few days. I didn't do that again. And that's why kids should be allowed to eat as many hot stoves as they want. Or something. Anyway, my parenting technique would probably be putting them in a room of dangerous things and fun things and tasty things and letting my old friend Darwin work it all out. In conclusion, it is probably for the best that my daughter was put up for adoption at birth.
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Apr 2, 2009 20:59:13 GMT -5
See, I have to disagree. I really ignored whatever my mother said, and continued the dangerous behaviour - after a smack, I'd be distressed enough to really, really listen to what she said. Once the deterrent had immediately stopped me, I was able to understand what she was saying, i.e. "never run on roads! You could get hurt or killed and you might never see it coming!"
Whereas when she'd attempted to tell me that sort of thing before, I'd go "yeah sure". Adults told me rules all the time, and since some of them were okay to break (the teachers told me not to climb trees, I did anyway, no punishment given) I treated them all that way.
I was never afraid of the smack. I was afraid of doing something that would upset my mum to that point, because that's when I knew that shit just got real.
Edit to Add: To reiterate my stance, though, I'm pretty anti-smacking. I just have different reasons for it (namely, the fact that many parents will go too far and hurt their children). And don't worry, DV, I'm enjoying your input <3
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 22:23:47 GMT -5
I'm not saying, "be negligent," I'm saying that, sometimes experience is the best teacher. I touched a hot thing ONCE -- after that, I didn't. Sorry if I seemed to jump down your throat in my response. I took your post as negligent. I don't think you mean to let a child tough a red hot stove, but it did seem that way.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 22:28:13 GMT -5
I'd like to add, although I don't plan on getting too far into this conversation, that I understand the difference between swatting, smacking, spanking, hitting, etc. I also understand the idea behind "you should never hit a child in anger" or as a reactionary thing. Which always begged the question to me: So it's better to deliver a calculated, purposeful act of violence (which it is, regardless of how light you do it or how small it is)? That's somehow demonstrates a better state of mind? Because if you think about it, that seems almost more disturbing than losing your temper. Purposefully choosing to hit in a calm and collected fashion doesn't seem right to me either. And as far as reasoning with small children goes, there are lots of things parents hit for that they could have solved by either child proofing their home, putting out of reach or otherwise dealing with the child differently. Hitting a kid for doing some things a kid does naturally doesn't really teach her anything, except to avoid getting hit. Whether all of us who got spanked or not are no worse off for it doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to look for better parenting techniques. But, as I said, I'm not going to get too deep into this conversation. Just a little more food for thought, I guess. And I'm also not trying to say that those who spank their kids are monstrous parents. I get what you are trying to say DV, and it does make sense to me. Let me say that the few times I have spanked my son, which is been a single quick smack on the ass, I have been angry. Not wildly out of control, but I'm sure my son knew that I was not happy with him.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 3, 2009 1:23:47 GMT -5
Are you trying to define "a quick swat" as a "positive training technique", or am I missing something? No a quick swat isn't a positive training technique, but I don't have the ability to say "Don't jump on the stove, it's hot". Instead he gets two fingers to the toes (He's a Rottweiler, I'd definitely hurt my hand long before I hurt him). I guess I was trying to shove two thoughts into one there. The first that we have discovered that animals learn faster by using positive training techniques than by the old "smack 'em till they listen" bullshit. So why wouldn't it be the same with children The second, that I don't consider a quick smack the same as a spanking. I guess I could let him burn his nose or paws on a hot stove, but I think the swat is better. Fine, I use Yeah!!!!!! with clapping hands. Or if I'm teaching a new command it's "good sit.... ggggooooooooodddddd sit". I'm talking about small children here. Some use "good job" "good boy" whatever. What I'm trying to point out is that rewarding good behaviour, even with a "good job" is something I don't see happen with parents. Example: I want my dogs to be peaceful in the house, so when they're being nice and quiet I will walk in and tell them "whose my perfect angels" and give them a cookie (I always have dog treats in my pockets). So to turn that to children, you want your child to do his homework right after dinner. One day he goes and gets his books and sits down to study right after dinner without being asked. I would say in 90% of households that would be ignored. I'm saying it should be rewarded. It doesn't have to be big, just acknowledge that your happy he's doing it. In a lot of homes, kids tend to get ignored until they do unacceptable behaviour, then they're punished.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 3, 2009 11:41:16 GMT -5
So to turn that to children, you want your child to do his homework right after dinner. One day he goes and gets his books and sits down to study right after dinner without being asked. I would say in 90% of households that would be ignored. I'm saying it should be rewarded. It doesn't have to be big, just acknowledge that your happy he's doing it. In a lot of homes, kids tend to get ignored until they do unacceptable behaviour, then they're punished. Concur. I recall one time when I was maybe nine or so that this very thing happened - I conscientiously got out my history book or whatever and was working on my homework right after dinner (no, I can't explain how on earth that happened), and after half an hour or so my mom brought me some candy and told me that it was a reward for being such a good student. I'd say that that event alone went a long way toward instilling strong study habits. And these days I'm a doctoral student! Conclusion: candy leads to doctors of psychology.
|
|