![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Oh, save me from the arrogant, ignorant and certain.
Save me, Lady, from people who take a good idea and an inability to see reason, and combine them in a whirlwind of slander and bullshit.
Thesis: Hitting children is wrong.
Thesis: Spanking is hitting.
Conclusion: Spanking is morally indistinguishable from beatings, and anyone who has ever spanked their child for any reason, or who tries to suggest that there might ever be mitigating or even condoning circumstances is practically as much a monster as someone who beats their children to sleep at night.
Save me. Save me from people who think that their successes and luck set a minimum moral standard. Who think that a hint of gray is as good as the pitchest black. Who refuse to consider that others might be different.
His hyperbole gripped me. His absolute conviction that a single smack on the bottom is as much child abuse as is a backhand to the face. That context is irrelevant, a trivialising distraction, a craven attempt at excusing something abhorrent. And it made me angry, because he is accusing me of torturing, tormenting, my children. [Ed: by implication.] Of accusing me of saying that “terror is an acceptable way to raise a child.”
He accused me of terrorising my children. How dare he? He really, honestly and deliberately made the claim that my ever having given my child a swat on the bottom if they try to run onto the road is equivalent to keeping my family under a climate of fear and intimidation.
And then, in a hissy fit to put a child to shame, he unfriended me. It's his right. It's his journal. But still: how juvenile! The action of a petulant teenager: who knows that he omniscient, and the existence of an alternative is not something to be argued, but something which is a personal insult just by existing, and the best answer to this is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout. [He now claims that it was because I was becoming hysterical, and he has indeed unscreened all my comments. He is also accusing me of being a liar.]
Well, I hope he enjoys his life, and the company of his echo chamber. Just because I have been known to agree with him and those on his journal, what he has is an echo chamber, if he systematically excludes anyone who disagrees with him, it's an echo chamber. But because he does say things worthy of hearing, I have not unfriended him. [OK, after the way he has insulted every one of thse of my friends who expressed sympathy or support, and then insulted my wife, he has earned contempt. I've unfriended him and if he wants to say something here he has to wait for me to grant him the right.]
Me, that exchange left me shaking. So I drove home, and gave my daughters, my treasures, the pulse of my heart, a hug goodnight and somehow completely failed to hit them in any way whatsoever. But because of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sammaelhain, for the first time in my life, I couldn't get the image out of my head of me hurting my own children. I hope he's happy. [He claims that this is because I have a guilty conscience. I respond that it is because it is a deeply disturbing thought, of which nightmares are made.]
He has done to me the same thing that people like Hetty Johnstone have done: he has made me second-guess every interaction I have with my children. He has made me look for evil in every innocent interaction. He has done his little bit to murder the joy I feel with my children. I hope I get over it, but the scar will twitch for a long, long time. I shouldn't let it, but it will.
Thesis: Hitting children is wrong.
Thesis: Spanking is hitting.
Conclusion: Spanking is morally indistinguishable from beatings, and anyone who has ever spanked their child for any reason, or who tries to suggest that there might ever be mitigating or even condoning circumstances is practically as much a monster as someone who beats their children to sleep at night.
Save me. Save me from people who think that their successes and luck set a minimum moral standard. Who think that a hint of gray is as good as the pitchest black. Who refuse to consider that others might be different.
His hyperbole gripped me. His absolute conviction that a single smack on the bottom is as much child abuse as is a backhand to the face. That context is irrelevant, a trivialising distraction, a craven attempt at excusing something abhorrent. And it made me angry, because he is accusing me of torturing, tormenting, my children. [Ed: by implication.] Of accusing me of saying that “terror is an acceptable way to raise a child.”
He accused me of terrorising my children. How dare he? He really, honestly and deliberately made the claim that my ever having given my child a swat on the bottom if they try to run onto the road is equivalent to keeping my family under a climate of fear and intimidation.
And then, in a hissy fit to put a child to shame, he unfriended me. It's his right. It's his journal. But still: how juvenile! The action of a petulant teenager: who knows that he omniscient, and the existence of an alternative is not something to be argued, but something which is a personal insult just by existing, and the best answer to this is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout. [He now claims that it was because I was becoming hysterical, and he has indeed unscreened all my comments. He is also accusing me of being a liar.]
Well, I hope he enjoys his life, and the company of his echo chamber. Just because I have been known to agree with him and those on his journal, what he has is an echo chamber, if he systematically excludes anyone who disagrees with him, it's an echo chamber. But because he does say things worthy of hearing, I have not unfriended him. [OK, after the way he has insulted every one of thse of my friends who expressed sympathy or support, and then insulted my wife, he has earned contempt. I've unfriended him and if he wants to say something here he has to wait for me to grant him the right.]
Me, that exchange left me shaking. So I drove home, and gave my daughters, my treasures, the pulse of my heart, a hug goodnight and somehow completely failed to hit them in any way whatsoever. But because of
sammaelhain, for the first time in my life, I couldn't get the image out of my head of me hurting my own children. I hope he's happy. [He claims that this is because I have a guilty conscience. I respond that it is because it is a deeply disturbing thought, of which nightmares are made.]He has done to me the same thing that people like Hetty Johnstone have done: he has made me second-guess every interaction I have with my children. He has made me look for evil in every innocent interaction. He has done his little bit to murder the joy I feel with my children. I hope I get over it, but the scar will twitch for a long, long time. I shouldn't let it, but it will.
no subject
No, his is a fundamentalism born of false extension: Making forceful contact with a child under any circumstances is as wrong as is backhanding your wife for talking back.
He and some of those who jumped in on the moral superiority theme say that they have raised children, and I have no reason to doubt them.
But the one who claimed to have looked after kids in a psychiatric hospital was under different circumstances: those kids were at an age where reason would work (even through psychosis), and had outgrown the effectiveness of smacking.
And in those cases where they had looked after small children, these were not their own. It is different when you are looking after someone else's kids: for one thing, it is not your place to smack: you have other methods you can use. For another, there is always the knowledge that at the end of the day you're giving them back, and you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline.
Ii can't tell them that, though, because his journal is screened for non-friends, and he is not, methinks, minded to allow this child abuser to have any more say on the subject.
And yes, you are right. It is not something you ever want to do, but there are times when something drastic must be done, and you do it, and deal with it, and they get over it.
If Sammelhain ever does have children of his own, I hope his principles live up to his experience.
no subject
There's a reason for the proverb "spare the rod and spoil the child". It's your responsibility to get lessons through to the kid, _now_. The method you use is up to you, but a smack is quick, immediate (endorphins FTW) and short lasting. The pain disappears in under a minute if you do it right.
no subject
He really does not get that a difference in degree really can be as important as a difference in kind.
He really does see no difference between spanking a naughty child and slapping your wife, or beating a slave.
He is beyond reason, methinks.
no subject
no subject
And this is why it's the easiest and most common way of disciplining children. That does NOT make it necessary, desired, or morally correct in any way, however.
no subject
As for necessary, I posit that just because someone has been able to do without it, does not mean that others may not find it necessary. The inability to see this indicates, in my opinion, a limitation on imagination and empathy, but that is beyond the remt of the argument.
You are correct as far as it goes, though. Just because it is the easiest and most common method does not make it necessary, desirable or correct.
I would argue that there is nothing about it which should be considered "desirable" in any case, so that's a distraction, and I posit that there are other reasons which make it sometimes necessary, and by that token, morally correct.
no subject
In rebuttal: hey, it worked on me, and on my siblings. A bit of healthy fear of "the green stick" (a piece of pipe that was also part of the laundry drainage system, but came out on special occasions when we really, _really_ deserved it) was good for us IMHO.
Besides, once we knew what was involved, just invoking the threat of the green stick was a very clear sign that we were treading on dangerous ground. That the issue under debate was serious.
What technique do you use to make it clear to a young child that the current issue is serious rather than just something you'd prefer them not to be doing?
no subject
Short answer as I head to bed: My experiences in a psych ward. See my extensive posts and comments re: this topic for further clarifications.
What technique do you use to make it clear to a young child that the current issue is serious rather than just something you'd prefer them not to be doing?
It depends on many individual and situational factors. Short answer--there is no "universal" and "absolute" answer. Long/vague answer--tone, previously established authority, personal presence, boundary holding, and highly subjective interpersonal cues, amongst other things.
This isn't something I can really convey via text over the internet.
no subject
Wh because as a parent you own your child and reserve the right to physical punishment because of it?
"you have other methods you can use"
Those same methods are at your disposal.
"you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline."
You do if you live with those children. Which I did.
"minded to allow this child abuser to have any more say on the subject."
Oh really, so which of you comments have I dissallowed? Answer: none. I've allowed you every chance to defend yourself, but if you intend to repa me for that by accusing me of the opposite, I'm only too happy to give you your wish.
no subject
“Wh because as a parent you own your child and reserve the right to physical punishment because of it?”
No, because as a parent it is my responsibility to do raise my children well. You and I disagree about whether that can ever include a smack.
Looking after someone else's children is different. Even if it is full time.
no subject
And I don't love my brother and sister or my nieces as much as you love your kids?
Bull to the fucking shit.
no subject
To say that they "don't love them as much as you love your biological kids" is a strawman argument.
no subject
You know the guy who can't stop thinking about hitting his kids.
no subject
You're not giving a particularly good impression of yourself here, especially with your ad hominen attacks.
no subject
He suggested that when kids are not your own you feel differently toward them..which is perhaps true in some sense, but not true in the depth of love one might feel.
He's since clarified what he meant, and while I think it was flimsy, I understand his point well enough to drop that particular issue.
no subject
I was, as you might imagine, quite upset at the time, and so was he.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
the former Psych worker, here
I'm afraid that "inability to reason" is one of the many hallmarks of psychosis. Not to mention the fact that at least 1/3 of our clients were ALSO clinically developmentally disabled. Perfect example off the top of my head--"D" was a 6'4" 450 pound 3 year old in a teenage body. He was perfectly fine except for when he didn't get his way, which is the only time discipline would be needed, anyway. And when he threw tantrums, it took half the staff to keep him from hurting himself, the other kids, or the staff. We still managed to make a bit of slow progress over the long-term, without ever hitting him or otherwise impinging upon his own personal integrity (which is what physically striking another human is, BTW). We only physically restrained him after we had exhausted every other option, and to not restrain him would have meant injury to other humans.
So, even though the youngest kids at where I worked were 6yrs old (and still clinically psychotic or they wouldn't be where I worked!), I don't think your argument holds up.
And in those cases where they had looked after small children, these were not their own. It is different when you are looking after someone else's kids:
I will not argue with that in the least.
for one thing, it is not your place to smack: you have other methods you can use.
Why can't parents use these same methods? You seem to be supporting my side, now... ;-)
For another, there is always the knowledge that at the end of the day you're giving them back, and you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline.
To an extent, yes. But when kids live at where you work--and you are in contact with them 40 hrs a week, you're only passing them off to your fellow co-workers, who then pass them back to you tomorrow. Working with them 10hrs a day, day in-day out, doesn't really make the ability to "pass the problems on" a very valid argument. As a matter of fact, it was policy to not leave a shift until problems that I was involved with were resolved. This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to re-establish interpersonal bonds with the kids.
I do hope this clarifies things a bit. Unfortunately, given my personal experiences from that job, I can't possibly see anyone convincing me that striking another human being is ever "required", let alone justified morally. Sorry.
Re: the former Psych worker, here
Small children (pre-school age) do not reason as older children or adults do. Neither do people under psychosis. But they are also different in their differences.
Small children do not always understand the concept of things which are important for most forms of punitive correction: shame, sorrow, regret, that sort of thing. That isn't to say they can't, but that this is one of those things which is still developing at that age. As they get older, these things come into their grasp, and by the time they start school they should be effective tools in their own right, but for younger children, not always. This varies depending on the child, and for the same child depending on time, circumstance and mood. A child may be devastated by a telling-off at one point, then think it a wonderful game the next.
This is my experience: my 3yo is playful, and enjoys playfighting. (She'll jump on top of me and wrestle, and I will, of course, lose with great drama.) If she tries to run onto the road, after I stop her, she is just as likely to think it a game when I tell her off. If she doesn't, wonderful, job done. If she does, though, she'll try it again, to keep playing. She will start deliberately running onto the road to get a reaction. The second time she does it, she gets told off, more forcefully. This may well just be seen as escalation of the game, though. She tries it again, she gets retrieved and given one short smack on the well-covered bottom. It doesn't hurt, but it does shock. Now it is not a game. Now she knows that running on to the road is not a game, that it is bad.
Children of that age tend to react to punishments much more immediately than older children. An older child, you can take away a favourite toy or set a time out, and they will make the connection to their behaviour (even if they do chafe and curse). A small child will just scream for the return of the toy: they don't, to a great extent can't make the connection yet. It does come, but in the meantime...
Psychotic patients are different. While they are under psychosis, then slapping them is as pointless as is trying to reason with them: they are incapable of changing their behaviour, let alone understanding why it is bad, or else they understand but can't stop doing it anyway. restraint is necessary to prevent harm until such point as the meds kick in, or the psychosis passes and they can function again. There is nothing that smacking can change, and so it is pointless cruelty.
Schools, again, corporal punishment is uncalled for in any way. First, by the time children reach school, the mental attributes required for correction through reason are established. Moreover, the structure of the teacher-student relationship is set up such that students wouldn't dare try things on their teacher that they would pull on their parents all the time. So in that sense, the very aura of authority of any decent teacher is itself a tool which is not available to the parents, should they need it.
Am I making sense?
Re: the former Psych worker, here
Agreed. And for the record, I have my degree in Psychology, and although I'm not personally a parent, I have worked with children from birth thru 18+ off and on my whole life. So I'm quite aware of the Devlop-Mental Stages kids go thru. Piaget & Erickson are but 2 examples...
...A child may be devastated by a telling-off at one point, then think it a wonderful game the next... She will start deliberately running onto the road to get a reaction. The second time she does it, she gets told off, more forcefully. This may well just be seen as escalation of the game, though. She tries it again, she gets retrieved and given one short smack on the well-covered bottom. It doesn't hurt, but it does shock. Now it is not a game. Now she knows that running on to the road is not a game, that it is bad.
I understand this. If she doesn't get it, then you definitely need to change tactics until you get the desired response. I still maintain that there are other ways to do this that don't involve striking a child, which demeans both their personal integrity & dignity. I don't have an "absolute answer", because--just like working at the Psych Ward--every kid is different, as is every situation. I continue to maintain that striking a child should NEVER been seen as a "Tool" for which anyone should reach, should they need to change tactics.
Am I making sense?
Yes, and I appreciate your well-thought out reply. I won't pretend to have all the answers. I do, however, feel quite confident that alternative solutions can be found by a parent who is persistent and dedicated to finding alternatives to corporeal punishment. It should be noted that, although I am not a parent personally (and we've touched on many of those reasons in this long, drama-filled topic), I do have many friends who are and who also hold similar beliefs as I.
I do think it possible to raise a child without striking them--it's just neither the "easiest", nor the "default" way that most of us are accustomed to, which was one of samm's many points that I also agree with.
Agape!
Personal Integrity and Dignity
You see, I think being insulted or called ugly/stupid is similarly demeaning to someone's personal integrity and dignity, but the fact is that they're going to be getting some of that in their life too. I'd rather have a child feel undignified and hurt when they do something bad - those feelings last, and the mental connections last. The physical pain is very transient, but the anticipation of physical pain is a strong deterrent. As is the anticipation of feeling undignified.
These are less painful and less overall damaging tools than psychological sneakiness. They're direct and easily understandable.
I would love to see your suggested alternative in the case above (child running on to the road, thinks it's a game). One that works immediately. One that's reliable.
NOTE: if you are a parent who regularly beats your kids for no reason, then smacking is unlikely to work, because it doesn't send a clear message any more. I'm assuming a parent who only uses smacks when there is a clear and already explained important rule being broken.
Re: Personal Integrity and Dignity
See my reply to your other comment, and/or feel free to view my most recent post. Again, this is--unfortunately--something that cannot be accurately conveyed via the highly limited medium of the text-based internet.
The complexity of alternative discipline is--unfortunately--a large part of the reason why so many people resort to the more simple, direct, and obvious method of striking a child.
Trust me when I say that if you and your children were local, I'd be more than happy to show you a demonstration ;-)
Re: Personal Integrity and Dignity
You wouldn't happen to live in or around Melbourne, Australia, by any chance, would you? ;) (the whois information for chaosmatrix.org implies not, but that's not certain.)
Re: Personal Integrity and Dignity