Yeah, this is way out of hand. I've avoided commenting on the subject, because it became so immediately emotional. I'm especially put off by MSH and Scriver's insistence on a strict definition of beating, when I know you guys are mature enough to understand that all you're accomplishing is disproportionate demonization. You're insisting on language, while applicable by purely technical definition, also promotes the most absolutely negative connotations possible. A firm but painless pat and a stern glare do not match the connotations of the word beating, and are usually all that's required.
I am sympathetic to both sides of the argument. I do think that physical punishment is way over-used by most parents. I've had dozens of arguments with people about the fact that punishment (of any sort, actually) does not teach anything besides fear of punishment, which becomes worthless when that fear is no longer present.
However, parents face a wide variety of difficult situations. Just because there are better solutions doesn't mean those are always feasible.
For instance
Removing privileges, grounding, lecturing, there are an entire set of non-violent punishments one can impose upon a child.
First of all, I think that removing privileges or grounding carries most of the same negative side-effects as physical punishment. Even if it's not physical, you're still relying on the development of unhappy associations with the bad behavior. The anger and resentment are still there. The only thing that's better about them is they don't reinforce violent behavior.
Second, these things are not always applicable. Lecturing obviously is not always useful. The younger a child, the smaller the range of subjects they can understand a lecture about. When you can't teach a child why a behavior is bad, but that behavior still must be prevented, positive or negative reinforcement are your only options.
Positive reinforcement is incredibly difficult to apply to many situations, and can make for a kid who only does things for the sake of praise or reward. It works best as a single-project approach to behaviors that can afford to be altered over a long term.
What's left is punishment. Immediate effect is sometimes required, and things like removing privileges or grounding do not provide an immediate effect. Furthermore, they are unlikely to be associated with the bad behavior in very small children. If a toddler does something bad and finds a couple hours later that they're not allowed to do something they like to do, they're not going to make the connection.
Time-outs are really the best thing, but they have to be done immediately if your child is not mature enough to understand later why they're receiving the time-out. Parents don't always have the option to drop whatever they're doing and supervise a time-out.
And that brings me to Scriver's repeated comments about parenting in Sweden. Parenting in Sweden is incredibly different from parenting in America. Most American families have both parents overworked, do not get paid parental leave (many don't even get vacation time), and are not willing to bend their normal policies whatsoever for parents. Try telling a boss in America that you're late to work because you had to give your child a time-out, and you'll probably get some lecture about how "If the company had wanted you to have a child, you would have been issued one" (actual quote from a rant by another parent). I've gotten into an almost yelling argument with my boss over my right to stay home (unpaid!!) and take care of my diabetic kid, who would very likely die if I didn't, on occasions that my wife isn't able to do so.
Author
Topic: Occupying Wallstreet (Read 289677 times)