- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrwhy did she feel she needed to stop your tantrum, were you putting yourself or others in danger? how old were you?
I was throwing a temper tantrum in a shopping mall; screaming and being awful, and not responding to her telling me sharply to "Be quiet and behave" (which is what she usually did). I was pushing at boundaries, apparently. A quick swat on my butt shut me up because I realized how serious she was; that there would be consequences (I would get in big trouble w ...[text shortened]... accounts, an angel as a child (but a nasty teenage girl, while I was nice and nerdy).
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderlooking after 3 is tricky , as you say the key is not to get in the situation in the first place. maybe she should have asked the toddler to hold the handle of the pushchair while they walked, if the child holds near the handle where the adults hand is the adult can grab the childs arm the second they let go. a grabbing of the arm and a loud 'no!!' is enough for the child to realize they've done something wrong.
As we are back on topic, here is a situation that my wife tells me a friend of hers actually faced.
She has three kids - one a baby in arms, one in a push chair and one a toddler. She was expecting her husband to collect her imminently in their car. However, he had forgotten about picking her up and she does not have a mobile phone.
As it was r ...[text shortened]... reat comfort of knowing she wasn't 'barbaric' and 'sickening' as per TOO's judgement.
i see lots of parents that do and dont smack children and a see no difference in the behavior of the children. the only exceptions being the parents at either extremes, ones who smack too much and ones who wont even raise their voice to there children.
12 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieSupposing she had done everything you had said and the child, despite her best efforts, had managed to break away again and run into the street for a second time.
looking after 3 is tricky , as you say the key is not to get in the situation in the first place. maybe she should have asked the toddler to hold the handle of the pushchair while they walked, if the child holds near the handle where the adults hand is the adult can grab the childs arm the second they let go. a grabbing of the arm and a loud 'no!!' is extremes, ones who smack too much and ones who wont even raise their voice to there children.
In that case, would a 'swat' have been permissable?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderits not that i feel a swat wasnt permissible the first time. i just dont think that a swat does anything a loud shout doesnt. if a child shows no emotional response from being shouted at by their parent then i would presume a swats not going to have an effect either.
Supposing she had done everything you had said and the child, despite her best efforts, had managed to break away again and run into the street for a second time.
In that case, would a 'swat' have been permissable?
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieDo you have any evidence upon which that presumption is based?
its not that i feel a swat wasnt permissible the first time. i just dont think that a swat does anything a loud shout doesnt. if a child shows no emotional response from being shouted at by their parent then i would presume a swats not going to have an effect either.
12 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat guy writing that is an idealist as are you.
It's not about taking more time and having more self control.
I am perfectly aware of my temper and would never strike anyone out of anger.
That guy writing that is an idealist as are you.
In a perfect world I wouldn't need to swat my kids at all.
But thats not what we face here.
The other thing is that kids need a real introduction into ch them about basic physicality is wrong and possibly quite counter-intuitive for the child.
"That guy" is Arthur Cherry, M.D., FAAP. The following explains what the FAAP after his name means:
The FAAP designation after a pediatrician's name stands for Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatricians who maintain their FAAP designation have obtained board certification in pediatrics and made an ongoing commitment to lifelong learning and advocacy for children.
The excerpt I pasted was from 1990 where Dr. Cherry is advocating that the AAP take a stance regarding the discipline of children which he summed up as follows:
We need to tell parents of our patients about ways to discipline that will not cause physical and mental harm. We need to tell them that hitting may be a temporary expedient but can be harmful and counter-productive.
http://nospank.net/aap5-a.htm
Following is the current official stance of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/pages/Where-We-Stand-Spanking.[WORD TOO LONG]
From what I gather, that stance was taken up some time after that article was published.
The following gives what the AAP is about:
About the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its member pediatricians dedicate their efforts and resources to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. The AAP has approximately 60,000 members in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and many other countries. Members include pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists. More than 34,000 members are board-certified and called Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP).
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/Pages/About-AAP.aspx
Evidently there quite a few pediatricians in the US who are also just "idealists".
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderAnd yet another ad hominem. And yet another not very well thought out one at that. This seems to be a trend.
Like other posters, I will withdraw from this debate until the points that were actually being discussed reemerge.
My only final reflection is that it is odd that TOO does not seem to be concerned that his arguments to date have had no impact on other posters, and indeed in some cases had moved them further away from his position.
Now often on th ...[text shortened]... the welfare of children as exerting his self-proclaimed moral superiority over others.
12 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo, she swatted me because I wouldn't behave and wouldn't listen. After being swatted, I listened and behaved. Since the swat was painless, and not done from an angry loss of control, and was effective, and also an instance of a very infrequently applied policy, used just when the typical policy of request/command didn't work, I just see no reason to take seriously your concern. Of course, if you had an actual, non- question-begging argument....
so she hit you because she was annoyed. that doesnt sound good.
But of course, my antagonists here have apparently transcended the need for anything as mundane as giving arguments, or even reasons, for their positions. Alas.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrdoes it need to be an argument??? i asked questions to understand the situation in which you felt being smacked was necessary.you replied that she was angry, which i think is an important point. now you say it was because you were not doing as you were told, originally it was because you were having a tantrum, its hard to 'argue' when i have no idea what the situation was. ill try.
No, she swatted me because I wouldn't behave and wouldn't listen. After being swatted, I listened and behaved. Since the swat was painless, and not done from an angry loss of control, and was effective, and also an instance of a very infrequently applied policy, used just when the typical policy of request/command didn't work, I just see no reason to take seri ...[text shortened]... need for anything as mundane as giving arguments, or even reasons, for their positions. Alas.
why were you not doing as you? why did it get to the point where she had no other option than to hit you. i would suggest that you were probably bored. maybe your grandma should have used positive parenting and gotten you involved in the shopping, made it a fun experience. if you were beyond positive parenting then i would suggest your parents were making mistakes at home. a child even at 2 or 3 should know not to be rude to grandma, you should have known that being rude to grandma would result in a punishment from your parents. usually if parents have built the correct connection with their kids and fostered a good feeling of trust and empathy then a kid gets upset at the thought of disappointing their parents.
there are lots of ways to parent so you dont have to hit your kids. if it gets to the point where you feel you need to hit them. its usually because youve made mistakes earlier.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrnot really, im the main care giver to my kids since they were babies, so i have a fair bit of experience and have talked to lots of other parents. also my wife is doing a phd in child behavior, so i learn a lot from her. i have a close family member who has adopted 4 children with behavior problems and seeing how she has dealt with her kids has been good to observe.
Do you have any evidence upon which that presumption is based?
12 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieMost of the families I know who have had problems with their children were those
not really, im the main care giver to my kids since they were babies, so i have a fair bit of experience and have talked to lots of other parents. also my wife is doing a phd in child behavior, so i learn a lot from her. i have a close family member who has adopted 4 children with behavior problems and seeing how she has dealt with her kids has been good to observe.
families who failed to use smacking as a punishment and a deterrent and instead
pandered to their children's whims with insipid threats and punishments that were
ineffectual and dismissed by their children. I once has a midwife tell me that smacking
taught children that violence was a justifiable means to an end, whut? it was like
conceptually sound but the opposite to what I was observing, the worst offenders were
those kids who had no real fear of reprisal, parents full of the latest contemporary
psychological hocus pocus, who read books on parenting and simply couldn't get it
together.