If I ever did this to my mum...

Remove all ads!

That little ***** needs a good spanking... And it's the mother's fault for never saying 'no' to him earlier in life.

 

I find it quite scary that the boy in the video doesn't believe he has done any wrong by hitting his mum to supposedly prove a point. He says he 'tapped her' on the face to prove a point. He also says he tapped her with his elbow. Nobody taps someone in the face or taps them with their elbow - they smack them - which is obvious if someone argues about it. Sorry for stating the obvious there but I've never seen a child act like that and not get punished in some way.

When I was growing up I was pretty nasty, apparently (painted my uncles convertible hard top with creozote, threw a horse riding helmet off of my brothers forehead, urinated in the goldfish pond in the tourist centre of Central Parks and ran away from school to say the least). My mum said she tried dozen's of things before she considered smacking us (I'll get your Dad not included ). Super Nanny's naughty step didn't stand a chance - how do you stop someone from moving when they ignore you? Same goes for sentencing me to my bedroom - I'd just walk out again. Bar the door? I'm out the window. My mum said she tried dozen's of things and the only thing I ended up responding to was the slipper (or the threat of getting my dad ) but she said she never let us go without what we needed (getting sent to bed with no supper etc). I think I'm a pretty level headed, regular person but I don't think I would be this way if I hadn't recieved some form of punishment and if this was the one that worked, then so be it and I don't think I'll find myself slipping to the dark side anyime soon.

I guess I'm condoning how my folks disciplined me and my siblings but I'd never see myself doing it that way. I pretty much can't stand hitting another creature and I think it's probably put me off having kids in case they were as unreceptive to non-physical punishments as me and I'd have to use physical discipline. The thought of striking anyone makes me feel really uncomfortable.

 

Joacqin, you don't punish the child because you're angry at them. You punish the child because they broke the rules and need to learn that there are consequences. Punishing them because you're angry isn't justice, it's revenge. This is probably the easiest way to become abusive. Also, I don't strike co-workers because:
1.) I don't have authority over them even if they do break the rules
2.) For adults, lasting consequences generally work better than imediate consequences.

There was a long time when physical punishment for criminals was common, and many good people grew up in that time.

I think you'd be surprised in that case.

Drew, unfortunately, I have heard liberals suggesting just that. Even worse, these are people that did seem to have more than half a brain. At least three quarters of one. Seriously, though, I have heard both parents and parenting counselors suggest this.

Because the principle that spanking is evil seems (to me at least) to be far more common among liberals than abuse is among conservatives. That may be my mistake, but it's what I've seen.

Kilts, the other option is that having a kid or two may make you really want to hitting another creature (specifically them). In that case, remember what I said about cooling down first.

 

Whoa. Hold on. There are parenting counselors that suggest letting your kids do whatever they want with no repercussions? I'm not buying it. The only way this could possibly true is that the only discipline you recognize as such involves force.

You really need to stop casting the world as us-vs-them, liberal-vs-conservative. It's a warped world view that bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality. Liberals and conservatives have far more in common than they do not. Only by deliberately seeking to create differences between them out of whole cloth (which usually involves warping liberal positions into something that doesn't even remotely resemble their actual positions), does a wide gulf appear.

 

Wow! There's so much for me to read and contemplate on this thread since I last posted, let alone respond to. I knew that my post would stir things-up a bit, and those of you who disliked what I had to say about "hitting" children had to know that I anticipated your remarks, that there was a "sea of difference" between spanking and "abuse." ....

Sorry, I had to pause here, since both of my girls were in my office - my six year old was asking me about how I adjust the cymbals on my drums (and if I could show her how the different stands work), and my four year old was telling me about the sharks that she saw on TV today. I'm telling you this because I stopped to give them my full attention. Have you seen some people in public with their kids? I used to work in retail stores and I have seen parents looking at "stuff," and if their kids try to get their attention, the parents smack them to get them to leave them alone, while they are shopping, or talking to whomever on their cell phones, or if they actually have to stop what they are doing because their small children are unable to stand at complete attention and do absolutley nothing while they spend 20 minutes looking at "stuff." Mind you it's not anything that would "damage" them, just enough to get them to back-off so that the parents can go back to being "good consumers." I used to see it everyday. And those parents are way better than the ones who choose to leave their kids in the car, so that they can shop. Today it was almost 100 degrees. How hot was it in a car sitting in a concrete parking lot? You think it does not happen often? Try asking a fireman or a policeman how many times a day they get calls from concerned by-standers, or store employees, who happen by, seeing young kids alone in a parking lot. They will tell you what they told me whenever I had to call: They see it "all the time."

While I was typing the last section, I stopped and put on a bed-time movie for the girls because they like to fall asleep watching TV. As soon as I went back to typing, my 6 year old came in and asked me for some choclate milk because she was thirsty, which I had to go downstairs to the kitchen and get for her (my other girl is already asleep).

I consider being a parent the most important job I will ever have. I give my kids my full attention, as often as I can. IMO, most kids "act out" because their parents find more important things to do rather than listen to what their children are telling them, or asking them. My four year old telling me about the sharks she saw on TV probably doesn't sound very important most of you, but it is to her, so I listen to her as if it is the most important thing I have heard all day.

I know there are great parents on this board, many of whom may not agree with my viewpoint on parenting - fair enough. We all have different ways of doing things - even 'Liberals," and the "hand-wringing variety of liberals" who are "ruining civilized society" with their "activism." How dreadful! I can appreciate all your "well-meaning" and "well thought-out" comments.


NOG - Thank you for the compliment. I am very proud of both my girls. Next week I will have a son, and I'm hoping that I will do as well by him. We will have to take him almost a month early because of complications, but he is already over 7 lbs, so he should be fine.

LDK - I sort of knew you didn't have to spank your kids. Good job, sir.

And for those of you who don't have children of your own: You don't know what you are missing. You can only "guess."

I'm not going to try and side-step the fact that the kid in Dr. Phil's video is a "brat." Of course, we are assuming that both are not paid actors, or that they were not prompted to behave this way by the directors of "Dr. Phil." Oh, that's right: everything we see on TV is "real." I know that all of you are smart enough to know that what we are seeing here may not necessarily be "real" in a factual sense, that it may in fact be a bit "dramatized" for TV.

Nevertheless, have no fear, I'm sure Dr. Phil's Brat Boot Camp will turn up the heat a bit on him. But where do they go from here? It sounds as if his mom has already applied the old "elbow blow to the arm" on him and she has perhaps tried "spanking" him a bit in the past. Still, I consider "spanking" as kind of like the nuclear warfare of parenting - like mutual assured destruction. I'm not about to apologize for the kid's bad behavoir, but I would ask all of you to consider his comments, that he learned to be the way he is from his mom. It's fitting, in some ways, but not all, that the apple never falls far from the tree.

 

You're one of the lucky ones who's children respond to what you're doing. The majority aren't that lucky.

Only as a last resort.

What you are forgetting is that children have their own freedom to choose their behaviour. When they choose to disregard all other forms of control, what are you left with?

That's exactly it. Some children are capable of learning the easy way, but others refuse to learn any other way.

Even when Spanking is considered an option, it is still important to be consistent and explain the transgression at the time of the punishment, so the kid knows what they did wrong.

I feel really old now...

They probably would, and if you objected, they'd probably rip on you about your parenting. If I had been in that position, then I would have gotten it even worse when I got home.

And he's going to be beaten repeatedly in the real world...

And the child would learn that pissing you off was not a good thing. Sooner or later he would catch on that treating his mother like that pisses you off so he shouldn't do that.

Chandos pointed out the abused children. Some parents went overboard, so now the activists want to take this option away from the rest of us. You're right, Todays activists and society is nuttier than ever!

The only thing that kid needs to learn is how to say "Do you want fries with that?" without dropping the F-bomb. Children who misbehave to such a degree will become the lowest caste of society. We're always going to need people to dig ditches and the like...

But sooner or later, the parent can no longer save the kid. It's better the kid learn that there are consequences when they're young and can learn from it and become contributing mambers of society rather than later on when they end up in prison for violent crime, and provide a drain on society.

If the parent has done their job right, then the teacher shouldn't have to.

A good point, but I was going directly to the offence that the child was committing.

It teaches the kid not to piss you off. Not the most efficient way, but it does work. It takes them time to realize what pisses you off, but eventually they learn...

If I had ever hit my mother I wouldn't be alive today. If she didn't kill me, my old man would have. Once the kid initiates violence, all bets are off. There's only one way he will learn, so I have no sympathy if he gets teh **** beat out of him.

I prefer the analogy of Boss and Employee. The Boss can fire a misbehaving employee. A parent can't fire their kid...

It is to be avoided where possible, but in extreme cases, it sends a message...

 

I can accept slapping a child as a last resort - when they did something very dangerous, or mean - and require immediate feedback. When I was little there was an incident when I found pouring spirit on a fire from a bottle a good idea, and when I set out to do so my dad saw it and slapped me in the face, which stopped me cold. The flame would have struck back into the bottle and I would have got burned, probably badly. So I don't hold a grudge; if I had children I'd do the same.

Children need limits and consequence just as much as they do need love.

The problem with beating as a regular educational tool is that once it has been embraced it follows its own logic: If a little beating works, more must work even better. I don't think it does work too well.

My grandpa beat his boys a lot, for things ranging from anger over felt impertinence to bad marks, usually with a leather belt. My mother still gets livid when the topic comes up. And looking at my uncles today: One has plenty of issues, the other is so-so (largely thanks to his splendid wife IMO), but neither of them has any warm feelings for him.

 

'Beating' is too heavy a word. 'Violence' is too heavy a word. We're not talking about bashing your childs head in here. We're talking about a clip round the ear, or on the bum that says "Don't do that again!". Some children don't respond to words. I was one of them. I was a naughty little barsteward and needed a smack now and again. My mum or dad never hit me as hard as they could, they did it just hard enough so I knew not to do it next time. I also only goy hit if I seriously crossed the line.

Some children don't respond to be talked to, usually because they don't have the mental capacity to realise what their dad is saying is right. They need to learn the hard way. Other children don't respond well to being hit and need another form of discipline. However all children need a little discipline.

In my view (and the way I was brought up) all parents should give their children a bit of rope and let them make their own mistakes in life. However, a parent should introduce boundaries for their children and enforce them. A child should have a good understanding of right and wrong, and know where the line is.

 

Drew, to some degree I agree, to another I don't. I don't try to seperate the world into 'conservatives' vs 'liberals', but this is a world in which some people embrace a set of beliefs commonly called 'conservativism' and other people embrace a set of beliefs called 'liberalism'. These two sets of beliefs (insofar as they address the same issues) are pretty well opposed. Because of this, when they encounter each other in the same society, they tend to be percieved as opposites.

All that being said, most conservatives I know and a great many liberals I know are rational, logical human beings with some measure of common sense, but some on each side go a little (or a lot) overboard.

I believe the 'don't discipline your child' philosophy was an off-shoot of the intellectualization of the 'if it feels good, do it' movement. This being, if it feels good, it is good; children want to do what feels good to them, therefore it must be good for them and you shouldn't get in the way of it, you may inhibbit their free expression. If it makes you feel any better, we can call them 'radical liberals', like Green Peace, and like the KKK could be called 'radical conservatives' (or just plain nutters), but it is a primarily liberal viewpoint (meaning it's almost entirely liberals that believe it, not that it is a major liberal belief).

Ragusa, this isn't the logic of spanking, or of any kind of discipline. This is the logic of an abuser. From what you've told me, I feel safe in saying your grandfather physically (and maybe emotionally) abused his kids. What you see in your uncles is not the result of spanking, but probably the result of childhood abuse.

On a somewhat seperate note, I'd just like to point out for those that may believe the that the 'teenage rebellion' phase is not natural. As children grow, they want to exert more individualism, yes, but if you raised them well to begin with and allow them room to be individuals as they grow, they shouldn't actually rebel.

 

Did you just compare Greenpeace to the KKK?

 

That's why I wrote beating, not spanking.

 

I have yet to meet a parent who never disciplines his children (although I've known a few who do it badly), and almost all my friends are parents that you would probably consider "radical liberals". When I find a kid who is rude and disrespectful, his parents almost invariably are rude and disrespectful. Kids learn a lot more by example than they do from a grounding, a time-out, or even a good strapping.

Some parents don't use tactics like time-out, grounding, or spanking, but this doesn't mean they don't discipline their kids. Most children highly value the esteem of their parents, so making utterly clear to them what your expectations are in advance (this is key - a kid will only have good manners and behaviour if you've taught him what those things are) and then telling them in no uncertain terms when they've failed to meet your expectations, how it makes you feel, and how you know that they are better than their actions have shown will have such great effect that (if you and your child have a good, caring relationship) further punishment is rarely, if ever, necessary. If you've ever been on the receiving end of such a reprimand, you will have no doubt in your mind that this, too, is real discipline.

 

That's exactly the point. Criminal acts, excessive rudeness or reckless endangerment of themselves and others need to be stopped quickly. Sure you can interrupt a dangerous act and talk to them (instruct them on your expectations), but repeated acts would warrant a spanking...

They learn, but what are they learning? A beating infers that there is anger present, so while specific offenses are not addressed, the kid learns to behave out of fear, and a simple threat will bring them into line. It doesn't teach them how to act or how not to act, only how to cower in fear.

Combine this with a poor choice of words out of the parent's mouth and an angry tone of voice puts the child on the defensive and interfere with the message the parent wants to convey. You get a recipe for years of strife in the home.

I'll just skip to nutters...

Isn't part of that a failure to communicate expectation? And what if in that growth process, those expectations are rejected? I know that most of the guys I was in Young Men's program with at my Church are not active now. I myself was inactive for 12 years. In most cases, mine included, many key commandments are disregarded. Sure there are those that do carry through, but communication of expectation is actually quite rare...

Evidently, he did, and I see it. I would have replaced the KKK with PETA, myself. They all have a message (noble or otherwise), but it gets lost in the whirlwind of manure that they inevitably stir up.

But at some point, the kid has to be accountable for their own actions, regardless of the example set for them. If the parent is a disrespectful jackass, that's their problem, but why should the teacher have to put up with that. There has to be some sanction that society can implement. LKD favours the strap, simply a couple shots across the hand, wrist or butt, I argue for exclusion.

By Exclusion, I suggest that if the child misbehaves in school, sentence them to a period of supervised exclusion. If this does not correct itself, then the child suffers academically (Not a big deal, because if they don't--or won't--learn to get along with others, they probably have poor employment prospects anyway). It could even require that they be held back a grade if it gets severe enough. The Supervisor of the excluded students would then assess the student while they are excluded, and watch for other conditions that may be troubling the student, or be able to look at additional consequences that may be necessary.

That's easier said than done. First off, the speaker knows what they mean, but the listener may not pick up on it. Secondly, with children with an impairment (like ADHD for example), may not catch all of what the parent is trying to convey. Sometimes the child is punished because of the disability, which is hardly fair...

 

Which is why you don't talk to a 5 year old as if he were 27.

Obviously, special situations warrant special treatment. Given that my first son is mildly autistic, I know this all too well. Nevertheless, even kids with ADD don't want their parents to be disappointed in them.

Uh...the difference between the actual message of the KKK and PETA is rather, well, striking. At worst, PETA or Greenpeace is a nuisance. Whether you like them or not, their doctrine isn't based in hate. The KKK, on the other hand, is decidedly more sinister. Bad comparison.

 

Drew, this may be my limited East Coast exposure to it, but I see the KKK as largely blunted hate-spewers now. Sure, I'll bet there are still occasional acts of violence, but they seem to be awefully rare to me. Greenpeace, on the other hand, is essentially a home-grown terrorist organization that has achieved some degree of political acceptance. They may not have flown any planes into buildings, or launched suicide-bombers at busy marketplaces, but they have killed people and they have enacted raids that, through a blatant lack of concern for human welfare, have resulted in people's deaths.

 

A quick web search confirmed that Greenpeace (unlike the KKK) has never killed anyone. While criticisms of the organization are legion, not a single criticism has had anything to do with Greenpeace either directly or indirectly causing someone's death. They may be a bit of a nuisance and a lot of their ideas (like supporting a worldwide ban on chlorine) aren't scientifically sound, but calling them a terrorist organization is, in my opinion, pushing it.

 

But again, how much training is out there for parents with such children? I wasn't diagnosed with tourette syndrome until I was 16, and even then, there was little support for parents and teacher that I was aware of in the small town where I came from.

 

Does spanking help you control your tourettes symptoms?