|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 23, 2010 15:47:05 GMT
If there is a general lack of discipline today - IF - then that's one thing. The idea that the way round it is to use more violence makes me shudder. Violence breeds violence. Violent parents teach their children to use violence. www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/22/i-only-stopped-because-my-arms-started-to-ache-115875-21986242/This story sums up the flaw in the 'disipline' ethic, RG. These two boys were often beaten by their violent father. They quickly learned you can get anything with violence and became imune to violence from an early age. These kids were not bad because they were not hit enough, they are violent because they where brought up in a culture where every missdead was answered with violence.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 23, 2010 22:26:13 GMT
discipline does not mean beating up your children....why is it always assumed that discipline equates to violence the best thing we can teach our children is SELF discipline while bringing in to play..punishments....rewards.. as they get older..reason..pride and responsibility and as riot says the odd smack for really dangerous stuff such as roads etc...better a smacked child than a dead or injured one.....but it all works together...and of course what works for one child doesn't necessarily work for another..but the general frame work is the same...and the earlier start on the ground rules the easier parenting becomes...not that parenting is ever easy and to use those two boys as your example is rather sick..those boys were not disciplined but warped by their father and mother and turned into little monsters..fed a diet of violence both real and on film..with some canabis to help them along
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 23, 2010 22:50:18 GMT
discipline does not mean beating up your children....why is it always assumed that discipline equates to violence the best thing we can teach our children is SELF discipline while bringing in to play..punishments....rewards.. as they get older..reason..pride and responsibility and as riot says the odd smack for really dangerous stuff such as roads etc...better a smacked child than a dead or injured one.....but it all works together...and of course what works for one child doesn't necessarily work for another..but the general frame work is the same...and the earlier start on the ground rules the easier parenting becomes...not that parenting is ever easy and to use those two boys as your example is rather sick..those boys were not disciplined but warped by their father and mother and turned into little monsters..fed a diet of violence both real and on film..with some canabis to help them along In order to understand the value of that reference, you'd have to read the whole thread. Otherwise, I agree with you, Mouse. Violence begets violence in many, many cases and almost always leaves a damaged human being. My Dad applied a limber little switch when we indulged in the same misbehavior more than once. It stung, but mostly served to make us feel ashamed of ourselves. From the age of 10 - on, no more switches but very effective little "talks". None of us (me, a brother and a sister) grew up to be embarrassments to our parents. My children - likewise, 1 son, 2 daughters - have never been hit beyond a smack to the backside - punished, yes, by losing privileges, groundings and the afore mentioned "little talks", but no brutality. Most kids have a real need to rebel a bit - part of gaining independence. But, I've always been able to communicate with them well enough that nothing serious has arisen. Could be I've been lucky, but I look around and see the adults who used to be children and never, ever were abused or beaten. Some of them were a little wild as teens, but somehow they got the message that it was not acceptable behavior without the need to beat them into a coma, etc.. Set up guidelines and limits, let them know you mean it, dole out appropriate rewards and punishments and all the while be consistent. It is not easy and sometimes it's very tempting to get lazy and let things slide, but, unless there is some kind of unusual problem, it works.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 23, 2010 23:17:08 GMT
Quote: Beth, can you explain something to me.
Are these pagents considered an uncontroversial part of US culture, or are there individuals and organisations speaking out against them in the mainstream?
You know, it really isn't seen as a big deal. Most people, obviously, don't do that kind of thing, but those who do are not shunned and despised. We may roll our eyes and shrug, but there are no major movements to put an end to the pageants.
It's found more in the south and more among those who are less well educated (tho' that does not mean less well off economically).
It appeared to me the Ramseys fell into it because the mother and her sisters had been involved, so it became tradition.
Also, there is a lot of effort by the pageant presenters to motivate the parents. They work through dance schools, modeling classes, etc., to encourage participation.
Sad, but, at this point, a part of our social landscape with no end in sight.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 24, 2010 4:03:57 GMT
This is a magazine ad from the 70s - when people were less easily scandalized . . . apparently.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 24, 2010 5:43:18 GMT
so a good old fashioned spanking is violence?
I'm not talking abuse, but a spanking, paddling or whatever it was called back then
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 24, 2010 5:43:46 GMT
Guess some of you wouldn't agree with sending the kid to the willow tree to get a switch?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2010 6:49:01 GMT
Chefmate, if it helps, I'm not against the occasional smack for extreme naughtiness, for the very young at least. You can't reason with a toddler and can't see why parents shouldn't train them by the tried and trusted method of immediate reward and punishment. We were spanked and my mother used to take a stick to my brother, but no way would either of us have been regarded as "abused" by the standards of the day.
As I child I used to read stories of children made to bring their parents the stick by which they were later beaten and it made me shudder! Later I met an American whose grandmother (who brought him up) used to do the same. He claimed she also used to go out to work and leave him tied to a chair leg because she didn't know what else to do with him!
I'm not suggesting that those who do the former necessarily go off and do the latter; indeed, having to find your own twig does at least offer some scope for initiative, even if it does prolongue the anticipation of punishment - which I suppose in itself could be regarded as helping reinforce the message.
It was a tough world for some children back in the 50s and 60s, and not just in the Southern States - there was a lot of ignorant parenting going on in Britain in those days too. The man left tied to a chair didn't grow up a criminal, but he wasn't a stable, confident person either. Mind you, neither was I in my younger days...!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 24, 2010 9:31:00 GMT
so a good old fashioned spanking is violence? I'm not talking abuse, but a spanking, paddling or whatever it was called back then no a good spanking/smacking is not abuse...i never used a stick or any other impliamnt on my kids..just my hand..and it was only for really dangerous stuff..and if memory serves me only a couple of times was it necessary i got spanked/smacked too..never abused the one thing my kids hated was being sent to MY room...not their rooms...which was an indicator of serious naughtyness no point in sending them to their rooms which had their toys and books etc so they were sent to my room to sit on a chair..consider their ways and await the wrath which was about to fall one of the things with kids is NEVER threaten what your not prepared to carry out because they soon get wise to the punishment which never happens and the rather weak wait till your father/mother gets home is a bit off too
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 24, 2010 10:32:56 GMT
so a good old fashioned spanking is violence? I'm not talking abuse, but a spanking, paddling or whatever it was called back then Of course a spanking is, by definition, violence. Hitting is violence. However, the consensus seems to be that it is not always an inappropriate way to punish very young children.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 11:39:14 GMT
so a good old fashioned spanking is violence? I'm not talking abuse, but a spanking, paddling or whatever it was called back then Of course a spanking is, by definition, violence. Hitting is violence. However, the consensus seems to be that it is not always an inappropriate way to punish very young children. so, it's your contention that superhero cartoons damage children. i seem to recall virtually every batman cartoon had "pow, bam" etc flashing, especially in comic books, when batman caught a criminal. roy rogers, gene autry, even the lone ranger, who NEVER shot anyone, turned kids into criminals. the roadrunner turned kids into serial stalkers. that's absurd hon, but it is EXACTLY what you are saying with the violence bs
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 11:44:51 GMT
so a good old fashioned spanking is violence? I'm not talking abuse, but a spanking, paddling or whatever it was called back then that is what society has degraded to. the fact is that spanking is just as much about the humiliation as it is about the butt stinging. when we we really stupid in school, we got to go to the principal's office for swats. getting to pull your pants down for the principal was worse than the paddle, even those which had holes drilled in them for greater effect. for most of us, it didn't take more than two or three trips to the principal's office before we got the message. the reality is that there is NOTHING abusive about spanking except in spock's warped mind, which subsequently warped the minds of successive generations, which has culminated in the idiocy that we have now
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 11:46:51 GMT
If there is a general lack of discipline today - IF - then that's one thing. The idea that the way round it is to use more violence makes me shudder. Violence breeds violence. Violent parents teach their children to use violence. www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/22/i-only-stopped-because-my-arms-started-to-ache-115875-21986242/This story sums up the flaw in the 'disipline' ethic, RG. These two boys were often beaten by their violent father. They quickly learned you can get anything with violence and became imune to violence from an early age. These kids were not bad because they were not hit enough, they are violent because they where brought up in a culture where every missdead was answered with violence. of course, that lunacy has NOTHING whatsoever to do with discipline in ANY way, shape, or form
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Feb 24, 2010 12:38:57 GMT
I'm really glad my husband and I managed to bring up a couple of kids without beating them into submission.
I do remember smacking one of them on the backside once (not very hard) because she had done something annoying but I also remember afterwards it was more about my irritation because I was having a bad day than anything particularly heinous she had done. Said more about me than her.
In later years when the kids and I talked about their childhood both said that the things that made them stop and think about behaviour were being sat down and having it explained to them why something was unacceptable, ill-advised etc. - not having mum get angry or throwing her weight about.
I am not against a swift smack if it is thought necessary but it would be inconceivable to me to cane my children.
How come then they did not grow into out-of-control hooligans?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 12:42:05 GMT
of course, that lunacy has NOTHING whatsoever to do with discipline in ANY way, shape, or form jumbo Perhaps for the benefit of those who can't tell the difference it ought to be explained.... "Discipline refers to methods (plural) of modeling character and of teaching self-control and acceptable behaviour, e.g teaching a child to wash her/his hands before meals, or teaching a child to look both ways before crossing the road. However, mention the word 'discipline' and some people immediately give it a negative connotation. "[This story sums up the flaw in the 'disipline' ethic]" - Does it? "<both brothers grew up in a nightmare environment. Their drug addict mum was regularly beaten by their drunken father in front of them.>" Judging by the tabloid article on a clearly dysfunctional family cited as evidence, some people either have no idea what is meant by discipline, or just deliberately set out to misrepresent. You can judge for yourself on that.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 13:10:44 GMT
Judging by the tabloid article on a clearly dysfunctional family cited as evidence, some people either have no idea what is meant by discipline, or just deliberately set out to misrepresent. How would a child know the difference between 'discipline' and mere 'violence'? If the father knocks seven shades out of the son because he has left toys on the floor or talks during the football or spills a cup of pop on the floor or whatever, how can that child filter out that as being 'wrong'? Those children grew up in a culture where the father got what he wanted by using violence and that violence and bullying was the acceptable way to act. No wonder they grew up skewed morals. Clearly hitting these two children did not make them better balanced children, so what would have stopped them? Is it your contention that they weren't being hit hard enough?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 13:19:28 GMT
Judging by the tabloid article on a clearly dysfunctional family cited as evidence, some people either have no idea what is meant by discipline, or just deliberately set out to misrepresent. How would a child know the difference between 'discipline' and mere 'violence'? If the father knocks seven shades out of the son because he has left toys on the floor or talks during the football or spills a cup of pop on the floor or whatever, how can that child filter out that as being 'wrong'? Those children grew up in a culture where the father got what he wanted by using violence and that violence and bullying was the acceptable way to act. No wonder they grew up skewed morals. Clearly hitting these two children did not make them better balanced children, so what would have stopped them? Is it your contention that they weren't being hit hard enough? There have always been dysfunctional families that span generations. It has nothing to do with discipline and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 24, 2010 14:26:16 GMT
How would a child know the difference between 'discipline' and mere 'violence'? If the father knocks seven shades out of the son because he has left toys on the floor or talks during the football or spills a cup of pop on the floor or whatever, how can that child filter out that as being 'wrong'? Those children grew up in a culture where the father got what he wanted by using violence and that violence and bullying was the acceptable way to act. No wonder they grew up skewed morals. Clearly hitting these two children did not make them better balanced children, so what would have stopped them? Is it your contention that they weren't being hit hard enough? There have always been dysfunctional families that span generations. It has nothing to do with discipline and you know it. What kind of spin is this? I see nothing about anyone objecting to "discipline" - the question is the type of discipline and the mind-set behind it. Violent, physical "chastisement", mentioned in this thread as justified, is a far extreme. I don't see anything appropriate or desirable about that - or, btw, the POV that would consider it acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 24, 2010 14:33:44 GMT
Of course a spanking is, by definition, violence. Hitting is violence. However, the consensus seems to be that it is not always an inappropriate way to punish very young children. so, it's your contention that superhero cartoons damage children. i seem to recall virtually every batman cartoon had "pow, bam" etc flashing, especially in comic books, when batman caught a criminal. roy rogers, gene autry, even the lone ranger, who NEVER shot anyone, turned kids into criminals. the roadrunner turned kids into serial stalkers. that's absurd hon, but it is EXACTLY what you are saying with the violence bs I'm not sure what comic books have to do with anything. The simple contention that hitting someone constitutes violence seems such a basic explanation of the English language that I'm not sure why you object to it. Are you saying that hitting a child is NOT violence? That's just absurd. The debate is about when and in what circumstances it is appropriate to use violence as a method to discipline a child.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 24, 2010 14:46:35 GMT
[ How would a child know the difference between 'discipline' and mere 'violence'? i will ask yet again...why is discipline always construed as violence by some people..when in fact discipline does not equate to violence and what has bullying to do with discipline you have some strange ideas random
|
|