RoR: Forum

Jon, despite that you sneer at me every time I read your post, ;-) I like very much what you described about your girl. As I defend parents' right to discipline their kids, which includes using rational and justified smack, I myself is actually also a non-smacker, so far.

And I absolutely agree with you on "getting involved in the science of child rearing—reading, learning, talking to other parents. In short, taking it seriously as a career". Indeed, raising my child has become my second career. When my son was 2, I even bought a book named "Toilet training for less than a day", read and understood it first, then designed the whole thing with key points written down on paper, and specifically designated a weekend to execute the plan. It worked beautifully.

Post 61

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 12:32pm

Jon,

A question for you. How do you control your daughter then? You say she used to have tantrums in the grocery store. What was your approach to stop her? Did you just say nothing and ignore her? Did you shout at her? Do you threaten her? Do you try to talk softly and gently to her why she should not do it?

You have said that smacking may cause psychological problems. Well, any of the above techniques may also cause psychological distress. Have you thought of that?

No one here is saying that your "no smacking" regime is a bad method for bringing up kids. We just believe that a parent is within his/her rights to physically chastise their kids as long as it does not cause physical injuries.

It is a bit like the advocates of ID cards. They always say, "if you have nothing to hide, you should not be opposed to them."

By the same token you seem to be saying, "if I do not need to smack my kids, it should be illegal".

Post 62

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:11pm

Marcus: “You say she used to have tantrums in the grocery store. What was your approach to stop her?”

It’s as simple as picking them up and saying, “stop screaming.” She would typically respond, “No. Put me down.” I would say, “I will, when you stop screaming.” “No.” “Then shall we drop all of it here and now, go home and take an early nap?” “No.” “Then let me know when you want to stop this crazy act, and I’ll put you down.” She would stop and I would put her down. It was only once or twice that she opted for going home for an early nap, a big negative. She hasn’t so opted again, because she has not had a tantrum since.

You wrote: “You have said that smacking may cause psychological problems. Well, any of the above techniques [you offered: “Did you just say nothing and ignore her? Did you shout at her? Do you threaten her? Do you try to talk softly and gently to her why she should not do it?”] may also cause psychological distress. Have you thought of that?”

What? Saying nothing, ignoring the tantrum is an excellent method. By withdrawing acknowledgement of the errant tantrum, their attempt to hook you fails, and they drop it. It works great sometimes. Psychological distress. Where are getting that from?

Likewise, talking softly and gently is also wonderful, caring parental behavior. Some tantrums are caused by simple frustration. A caring, “Sweetheart, I know this boring. It will be over soon. Thanks for your patience, don’t rage, please. It helps us none. We’ll be at the park right after this errand” works great! How Marcus, would THAT cause psychological distress. You are comical.

As for shouting and threatening, I don’t know about psychological distress, but they consistently have delivered more errant behavior when I have employed them.

You wrote: “No one here is saying that your "no smacking" regime is a bad method for bringing up kids. We just believe that a parent is within his/her rights to physically chastise their kids as long as it does not cause physical injuries.”

And I am not saying that a parent is NOT within his/her rights to physically chastise their kids as long as it does not cause physical injuries. This law we are discussing bans physical injuries. I would add that a parent is not within their right to cause psychological injuries, and given the cavalier attitude toward hitting expressed by many non-parents here, I believe they discount and/or are ignorant of the potential for such injuries.

Jon

Post 63

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:36pm

Jason,

About your example of a small child running into the street. I did that twice. The first time, my father told me, "If you don't look where you are running, you can fall and hurt yourself." The second time, I fell on something and cut my forehead open. After he cleaned and stitched the cut, I started thinking about how come he could predict such things, and I decided it would be neat if I could too. That's when I started asking lots of questions.

Hong,

Yoon tells me that when Ron Merrill's kids were small, she also thought she'd smack them if needed, but in fact had never needed to. I predict the same for you.

Post 64

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:05pm

David,

I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but it occurred to me that you're one of the only contributors on your side of the debate that's stuck to giving me rational arguments (including, I'll admit, some serious food for thought) rather then resorting to throwing insults and other bullshit, so I'll answer your question.

In the situation you described above, no I would not be sending the police after you, for reasons that ought to be clear from my previous posts.

Like I said, you did give me cause to consider the implications of my position, and not being a parent I'll concede I may well change my mind if I ever do have kids, but at the moment based on what I've read on the subject I'm still convinced there are serious psychological implications in terms of the message it sends to kids and that for that reason it is undesirable to do so (all of which other contributors have commented on in more detail than I).

Regards
MH

Edited to remove a joke in case it was taken out of context or inadvertently caused offence.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 1/16, 3:21pm)

Post 65

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 3:37pm

MH - Why would you not be sending the police after David? It's not at all clear from your previous posts. Yesterday you were saying of course the police would "get involved." And yes, that *did* follow from your desire to criminalise smacking. So which is it?

Post 66

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:25pm

Adam: "Has anyone noticed that all the actual parents here are on just one of the two "sides" of this "controversy?"

Not any more. I'm not a parent, but I'm firmly on the side of you and Jon. I see absolutely no reason for ever hitting a dog or a cat, much less a child. (Nor, by the way, do I see any reason for screaming at them.) That's not how a child learns anything but to resent the bullies who are his parents. Nor does it matter whether the hitting is severe enough to leave bruises or not. The damage to the child is the same -- in humiliation, in the awareness that he is being treated without any dignity, that his pride is being trampled on.

Barbara

Post 67

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:31pm

Nature quotes The Ethics of Liberty": "The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

If I believed for one moment that this abomination was consistent with libertarian theory, that is the moment I would cease to be a libertarian.

Barbara

Post 68

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:46pm

Jennifer "I was cuffed three times in my life, but I remember every one of them. They were not brutal slaps, nor did they scar me for life, but you can be damn sure they corrected the behavioral problem."

Jennifer, this is totally irrelevant. Had your parents not fed you for a week, or beaten you into unconsciousness, that, too, would have corrected the behavioral problem. But that is not a reason for resorting to such measures.

I am more than a little stunned to find so many people on this list who express dislike of children. Of course some children are nasty brats -- but surely we aren't justified in saying we dislike adults because some of them are large nasty brats.

Barbara

Post 69

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:47pm

Barbara,

You are correct about cats and dogs. I haven’t the slightest idea what good hitting a cat would do, but I know from actual experience with my dogs that hitting is totally worthless. I have trained my current dog to do things that amaze me, with my mind, her mind, my voice and positive rewards. It’s amazing to me that some people claim to grasp that you can’t force a mind to think, but relish the right to whack a child.

Jon

Post 70

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:47pm

Another reply from Kelly, who continues to have computer problems:

quote :It's my understanding that you would hit a small child in order to reinforce an abstract concept (i.e., "No!") with a concrete, physical reinforcement

Why does the physical reinforcement have to be punishing? How about restraining the child's hand while saying "Hot!" That is concrete and physical. The idea of hitting instead is to cause pain and/or fear, and to prevent a repeat of the action because the child is afraid of the punishment. I have some friends online who call concrete and physical (but non punishing) discipline GOYB (get off your butt) parenting. We don't say no over and over without doing anything; we simply go over and help the child follow through with stopping the bad behavior and doing the right thing.

By the way, I would just let Livy touch the stove. It's not a dangerous kind of burn, and I think reality is the best teacher.

David, what are the last resort situations that you are talking about? I have observed that parents often tire of the patience and time the non violent methods take, get frustrated and angry, then spank. I think it takes years for a child to develop self discipline, and until then, we must plug away at GOYB parenting.

Kelly

Post 71

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:48pm

Lindsay,

Just so we're clear, I'm not going to continue responding to you if you level any more insults at me.

That said, I thought I made clear in post #37 that I recognise there would be situations were a ban would be unenforceable, and that in all likelihood in some of these situations it would be just as well that was the case; because the situation would be better resolved between the family members without police involvement. A situation like David seems to be talking about, i.e. a (relatively) gentle smack that barely leaves a mark, which is done only as an absolute last resort, would certainly fall into that category.

As for more "serious" cases of corporal punishment, read the research and then tell me you think the situation is fine as it is.

MH

Post 72

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:58pm

Linz, my answer to your question is that David should not be subject to criminal charges for what he states he has done, since he has not done physical damage to his child.

It only creates confusion if we don't consider separately the moral and the legal issues involved in hitting children.

Barbara

Post 73

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:10pm

But if one of his whacks results in a bruise then he *should* be subject to criminal charges?

Post 74

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:11pm

Matthew,

I really don't mean to pile on, but I still don't think you're being clear--or at least objective--in justifying why David shouldn't be punished, from your position. You're basically saying that he shouldn't be punished because he can't be punished; because the law is unenforceable in such a case. But that's not a clear, objective distinction. How can you support a law that you think should go unenforced some of the time?

Obviously, there is a problem in such a law that must be corrected, if there were cases in which it shouldn't be enforced. So how would you correct it so it may be enforced fully? How would your law read?

I'm not saying that such a law can be "perfect." But it must be objectively defined.

Alec

Post 75

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:14pm

MH - no "insult" could do justice to the horror of the position you were advocating yesterday. Now you seem to be back-pedalling. You would implement a ban while hoping that it wouldn't or couldn't be enforced in many cases. You of all people should know that there's no quicker way to bring a law into disrepute than to say it should be there but it shouldn't be enforced.

Linz

Post 76

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:18pm

A friend of mine who was a child psychologist and the mother of three children -- and passionately opposed to any physical abuse of children -- once explained to me what she considered to be a proper theory of how to deal with unacceptable behavior. She said that a parent's primary function is to equip a child to live successfully in the adult word he will be entering, and therefore, when a child does something wrong, the parent should as much as possible treat him as he legitimately would be treated if he were an adult. That is, as an example, if he were a disruptive and noisy adult, other adults would not agree to be with him -- and so his parents might send him to his room as the logical not actually as punishment but as the consequence of such behavior.

To attempt to teach a child by instilling in him the fear of a parent's violence against him, is excellent training for a religious morality: that is, the belief that one should be "good" because of the fear of God's punishment. Not the wisest approach for Objectivists, one might safely say.

Barbara

Post 77

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 7:49pm

Hello! I'm new here. My name is Jenn and I was introduced to SOLO by Jason Dixon (Hi!), and I also know Kelly, who has previously posted (hi as well).

I think the legal argument and the moral argument have been mixed up. The original article is focused on the legal aspects. However, I'm more interested in exploring the moral aspects of hitting children. I believe that issue is much more important for us to consider.

I have a boy who is 2.75 (and a girl due in March). My husband and I made the decision not to hit our children before our son was even conceived. Here are several of our reasons (out of many reasons).

1. When modeling appropriate behavior for our kids, we wanted to be able to honestly say "nobody hits anybody in this house".

2. I knew that I would only feel like hitting our kids when I was angry, which I think would be a terrible thing to do--so easy to lose control and really hurt a child (physically, in addition to the psychological hurt of any hitting) in that instance. And yet, I found the idea of hitting a child "in cold blood" (after I'd calmed down) uncomfortable as well. I figured that if I could calm myself and not hit him out of anger, then I could probably be calm enough to find an alternative method of handling the situation. This has proven to be the case.

3. Children are not pets to be "trained"--they are human beings. I would not hit my husband or anyone, except in self-defense. Why on earth would I hit my small child if I wouldn't just haul off and slap my husband if I were angry at something he had done? Small children should be treated with respect and dignity--they are human beings and as such are deserving of such treatment.

4. We wanted our children to respect us, not fear us, as we did our parents. Our parents never crossed that line into criminal physical abuse, but the damage was done. We want to foster a closeness with our children that hopefully will continue into their adulthood, based on mutual trust and respect. Hitting our children is not a way to reach that goal.

Barbara: I completely agree with your comments concerning treating children with dignity and respect, rather than blind fear. Thanks for saying that.

No, children are not grown ups. They have limited experience and judgment. They have a really hard time controlling their impulses (like some adults I know). They have no idea how to behave in social situations. They can't control their growing bodies as well as adults can. They need LOTS of practice when learning any new skill, such as walking or talking or getting along with others or not running into the street without looking. Any of the above can be very frustrating for adults to deal with--my son had a 60 minute temper tantrum tonight, believe me when I say that I KNOW how terribly frustrating and exhausting it can be to deal with.

But my job as a parent is to help him learn inner self-discipline so that he becomes an adult who doesn't rant and rave and hit and otherwise act inappropriately when around other people. My son is looking to me and my husband (and other adults, too!) to learn about how people behave with others. He is watching our examples and internalizing them. Since he doesn't have inner discipline yet, I have to help him learn how to behave, both through my own behavior and by guiding him through issues in the moment. If a child is raised to fear others due to physical or psychological harm, how is that going to color his view of the world and other humans? What is he internalizing and how will that affect his adult life?

Well, I think that's enough for my first post. I'm interested in hearing your feedback.

~Jenn

Post 78

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 9:31pm

Hong,

Sorry for the sneer (actually, it’s a snarl.) It’s not directed at you, but at my detractors. I was still a landlord when that shot was taken—the look served me well. Come to think of it, maybe I see so little child hitting because of the way I look—could my appearance be a deterrent? A delightful thought. Anyway, beauty is of no particular value in my current career, either, but I do have hair now. Maybe I will take a shot and submit it before shaving again.

Jon

Post 79

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 9:37pm