I'm also wondering why some people are questioning the fact that there can be differences in the way children are perceived and treated according to the culture or society in which they are raised. I'm raising kids in a culture different from that of my own childhood, and I can say that for sure, the society around me has a big influence on the way I treat my kids. In a different thread, I responded specifically to a comment that another poster made about parents and how they regard their children as 'solely theirs':

quote:

---

Have you never, ever seen a parent hit a child in public? And when someone comments on this they're told to Fuck Off?

---

I reacted strongly to this comment, not because I disagreed with the poster, but because the whole parent vs. state dichotomy in child-raising is a lot less on the surface here in Quebec. And in fact, I have never seen a parent hit a child in public in nearly twenty years of living in Quebec. I have been wracking my brain trying to remember a time when I overheard a parent reaming out their kid in public, and I draw a blank there, too.

I have also since come across a timely report about a Université de Montréal study on child-raising in Quebec entitled
Les parents du Québec sont trop mous avec leurs enfants (Parents in Quebec are too soft on their kids). While it doesn't compare stats with other provinces, the study (a survey of 4000 parents) notes that the use of minor violence against children is less common than it was even a few years ago (among mothers who admitted spanking or hitting their child, the rate was 48% in 1999 and 43% in 2004), and that only 16% of mothers and 20% of fathers are favourable to any law allowing parents to use physical force to discipline a child. If this were a nationwide stat, there wouldn't have been such an uproar when that law was passed (or was it passed, I don't even remember...?)

Anyways, here is a quote from the article:

quote:

---

Les résultats de l’étude appuient l’hypothèse que les parents du Québec sont de plus en plus concernés par le bien-être de leurs enfants et défavorables aux punitions corporelles.

---

So, if parents in Quebec are 'unfavourable' to corporal punishment, it follows that they won't display that behaviour in public. I could corroborate with tonnes of anecdotes, but this post would be even longer than it already is.
That doesn't mean they are better parents, though. But they do have help if they are so inclined - and it comes from social policy.

I happen to think that our strong and vital daycare network has a big influence on the way we parent in Quebec. At least 50% of parents with preschool-age kids have a kid in the subsidized system, and this number has been growing steadily over the years since 1997 when the 5$ a day program was established. Imagine: 50% of all preschool-age kids in a daycare program, and in those daycares, corporal punishment is an absolute no-no - no matter who, no matter what, no matter when. So, from handouts and from talking with daycare personnel, parents learn different techniques of managing kids' temper tantrums, and they learn that spankings or yellings are not the way to do it. Also, parents don't feel like they're alone in the child-raising business, that there's a network of support, and perhaps more fundamentally - that they don't have 100% responsibility for their kids 100% of the time.

I'm not saying this is a kidtopia or even that there aren't things I'd like to see done differently. (For example, for the past 15 years or so, schoolkids have been invited to call their teachers by their first names. This hasn't exactly been a successful tactic for classroom discipline, according to some teachers. Recently, many parents have been questioning this practice, and some schools and some individual teachers are reacting; for example, my kid's teacher this year is 'Madame Josée' - last year, his teacher was simply 'Marie-Ève')

however, there was another teacher who treated the kids badly for no good reasons (even I was a victim once!), she wasn't muslim, lots of parents complained and she got fired.

I think brebis and ephemeral's ideas about culture were bang on though. When I was growing up, principals could still cane students. Violence against children was a normal part of life. And I remember sharing tales of corporal punishment with a group of immigrant friends (in this particular case, from Croatia) of mine while my Canadian born and raised friends listened on in horror.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

I don't agree with corporal punishement except in extreme cases (slapping a child's hand away from a lit burner is okay, just about anything else isn't)

In the school system here, however, corporal punishement isn't just accepted, it's expected. Two years ago, the government passed a law limiting the size of the stick teachers are allowed to beat students with.

Because of extremely long workdays for most people here and the absence of any real daycare system (subsidized or not), kids are often shuttled from school to various academies to study different things until the late evening.

When I see my poor little grade 3 kids with bruises and falling asleep in class, it's hard not to consider their way child abuse.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: peppermint ]

I've posted this link before in a different thread, it's an article by a Sydney (Australia) psychologist that I first read in a magazine called Empathic Parenting. He makes some really good points about how attitudes toward child-raising reflect and condition entire nations towards greater or lesser acceptance of violent and oppressive means of social discipline, such as war or dictatorship. That might be an incomplete analysis (not to mention the fact that it's written from a western perspective), since many nations are effectively oppressed from the outside rather than the inside, but it's worth considering...

Just this afternoon, I was watching a news clipping of Korean police brutality over the last few years, and I could pretty much see a direct path from the everyday violence I see in my classroom (mostly playful hitting but still) to that clip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
personally, i believe that spanking, slapping, whatever, is violence against children.

---

quote:

---

I guess you'd be against abortion then, 'cause that would seem to be violence against unborn children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HerculesRockefeller:
I guess you'd be against abortion then, 'cause that would seem to be violence against unborn children.

---

The problem I have with permissive parenting and "democratic" parenting is based on what I have seen of the results. Kids who are absolute tyrants, kids who are really rotten brats.

I suspect we might first need to examine "power and control" dynamics. I'm not sure we can have "democratic" parenting when parents are, for the most part "adults", with at least some experience and kids aren't, and don't have any experience or even much awareness of the consequences of some actions and behaviours.

First day of school out here...took a grandson down to enroll him...went early because I wanted to avoid the uproar...with the forms all filled out and signed on appropriate lines I came home to check out this discussion, and find that it has already become very personal rather than being an exchange of ideas, and even perhaps some examples of how to resolve certain issues.

I'd like, for example, the opportunity to read some ideas on what to do with a ten year old who sticks her tongue out at the teacher and then flounces off laughing, proud and safe ... and who does this regretably regularly... then refuses "time out"...

I'd be interested, too, in discussion around household chores...the effectiveness of "grounding"... or what to do with a thirteen year old still having temper tantrums more suitable to a two year old..

you know, some practical stuff. I read the theories and I can agree with virtually all of what is written...then the example presents itself and there seems no practical suggestion, by practical I mean something which will work, in both long and short term.

I really don't much appreciate, for example, going out for dinner, and in the middle of a meal which is going to cost a significant amount having someone else's kid choose this time and space to raise hell.

I don't think I wear a "grandma mask"..it's just my face...and I'm a grandma..twentyfour hours a day seven days a week for the rest of my life.

And you? You have how many well behaved and pleasant children in your care?

quote:

---

I don't think a slap on the backside, especially through a diaper

---

I think slapping a kid with a diaper on is a bit young to be slapping.

I do agree a slap can be useful and meted out with care. I am of course of another generation, and the occasional whack was not considered a beating.
Yvon Deschamps has a very funny rant on parents and children.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: clersal ]

Is it "spanking" if it's a situation such as Chubbybear describes?

I would expect the answer to both to be the same.

Chub, I'm truly sorry. How awful for you and for your sister. How awful for your mom to now have to remember and possibly re-live those mistakes.

Nothing like that comes down on "the girlfriends". There have been swats on well padded bums, mostly to do with the road in front of my place. The girlfriends live on a very remote reserve, very small, no roads, no traffic except foot traffic, not even bikes or trikes. And no playground. When they come here there's a playground,visible from my windows or from my porch. And every now and again a car, driven slowly. But however slow...when a two and a half year old who can run like the wind takes it into her head she's going to the playground... and I did the stop--look both ways..listen..look again probably two dozen times and still..zip...and so the yell "HEY!"...and then a swat on a well padded rump...kid said "ow" and I said how much of an ow if a car hits you...

and now they have graduated to a trike for the now three year old and a small two wheeler with training wheels for the four year old and HEY isn't needed...nor the noisy but not painful swat...

except Lilli, who is eleven months old and can crawl almost as fast as most adults walk, has decided SHE isn't staying home if the other kids are going to the playground ... so Grandma strolls behind, being eyes and ears, ready to scoop her up if traffic should happen...

I come out of a background very similar in some ways to chubbybears...I was miles far too strict with my kids...who watch me with the girlfriends and shake their heads and make jokes about being born thirty years too soon...

I'd sooner give a noisy but painless swat to a well padded rump than have to go to a funeral where the coffin is less than three feet long. I do not know if I could remain sane. I have lost one infant to haemophilis influenza and it is a hell I hope to never revisit. If we knew we'd bury our kids before ourselves, we'd never have them. If a swat on the rump will make a kid think about checking traffic..I'll swat. I'll holler HEY...a soft voice turneth away wratch but it doesn't stop a car...or a kid...

So WHY if we're doing so much better raising kids in democratic ways are schools needing to hire guards and rent-a-cops to patrol the corridors and why are teachers quitting rather than put up with rude, loud, defiant, and often violent brats?

I feel some (certainly not all) kids have learned to control others behaviour with their own misbehaviour...if they don't get their way immediately all stops are pulled and all hell bursts loose over everyone...

and yeah, in that case, I'd swat...

When I lived in France I was struck by how well behaved the kids were. I didn't see any signs or hints of violence, or of physical abuse. But uncontrolled temper tantrums were not tolerated by anybody, and extended family and neighbours seemed to be quite free to speak sharply to a kid who was getting wound up...I don't know the proper spelling, it sounded like "tay toi!" and when delivered in a sharp and disapproving voice it did seem to work...I lived in a small village in Alsace Lorraine, teachers were Mme or Mlle or M., the kids were as full of fun as any but being rude or disrespectful was not in any way tolerated.

Maybe as we try to get rid of the old we just haven't yet come up with something "new" which works?

And I repeat, I don't expect robot-like or stifled obedience...they are, after all, kids, and still learning but some of what they seem to be learning is pretty rank. and if they never learn to control their outbursts what will happen to THEIR kids..? "Take yourself in hand" doesn't seem to me to be cruel.

When it comes to cultural differences, it amazes me how when the proposal of criminalizing/abolishing of corporal punishment, those who want to retain this "right" always supplement it with "it is my child, my household and I will see fit how to discipline them". It is a whole "how dare you criticize me and dictate what I do with my child" as if they are property. It is not unlike the norm of how women were seen as chattle of their husbands. It is a archaic mode of thinking and just because it is your child doesn't mean it doesn't affect society as a whole. Children who have had corporal punishment do suffer from self-esteem issues. Sure, hitting a kid with a belt may make people flinch, but how is this different from a hand? Children are little human beings who have the right to love and respect just like anyone else. They need to be valued and by not allowing corporal punishment means that we want them to be protected and safe.

I'll deal with the rude ten year old, because that's what I'm most familiar with.

If you catch it the first time, walking up, looming over the child and giving her the "death stare" is generally enough to ensure that it won't happen again.

My classroom is run on an incentive for good behavior system, based on teams. When one member of the team acts out, and the whole team lose a sticker, the team will generally work to keep that child in line.

Quirks of the Korean system provide me with a few other alternatives.

Kids do most of the cleaning at Korean schools, after school and at lunch times. Children that consistently cause trouble lose their playtime at lunch, because they have to come and sweep my classroom.

I couldn't do that. I absolutely could not do that.

I was almost in tears watching that poor little guy.

Yes, it was a "problem" his parents had made. There was nothing healthy in the way he was glommed on to his mom. But I thought the "cure" was cruel.

quote:

---

posted by Jacob Two-Two: How many other people in your life do you swat? Do you give your partner a firm (but gentle) smack when they displease you? Your co-workers? Friends? Besides children, is there any other group in which this is considered acceptable?

---

On the issue of corporeal punishment ... Intent or motivation is a consideration. When a responsible adult takes a strong, appropriate and considered action which does not cause injury but stops the child, after one has communicated to a toddler the danger or risk involved in persisting in a specific behaviour & has explained the harm inflicted upon others when the child continues biting, yelling or bullying - this is not abuse.

BTW, I was once spanked by my father the same week another child in the city slid into the path of a car and died, because I disobeyed an order to stop climbing snow banks lining the streets. He wept more than I did as he used his leather belt on my bum. Interestingly enough, my mother directed my father to do so, since she sensed that anything she did would add fuel to my distrust and dislike of her. She never raised a hand to me but she used various emotional strategies over the years to control the stubborn, defiant, willful and distant daughter she had given birth to, against her inclination to have children.

When I raised my daughter, I expressed my love for her in many ways, yet clearly articulated the boundaries to be respected. The Parent Effectiveness Training approach guided me when I needed to create and communicate a 'disciplined' response. Only once, I slapped her on the bum when I had to impress her with the grave danger she had disregarded. Another time, when she pulled a hysterical tantrum at a checkout counter, I wrapped her tightly in my arms and held her until the crisis passed. She will be 30 years old this month and I am so full of love and admiration for the strong woman she is.

And I feel that I have been able to develop with her the kind of relationship that I wanted but never had with my own mother.

Edited to add one online reference to Parent Effectiveness Training.

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

I don't think not being beaten is the reason some children turn into tyrants. In middle-class French families, at least the progressive ones I know, beating children is seen as most downscale... But true, children who misbehave are spoken to harshly - the expression you are looking for is "tais-toi!" (that means be quiet, the rude expression is "ferme ta gueule!".

At the time, i went through with it under the idea that if he saw us arguing about the issue, and/or if I didn't do it, he'd see that he could play us off against each other, or get the idea that we made empty warnings, or some such thing.

I still resented her for putting me in that position. The swat was nothing and he didn't react at all, except to have his face register that he'd done something wrong and was now getting "spanked."

Beyond that, i don't remember spanking my son. But he was an absolute angel, and the occasion rarely (if ever) presented itself.

I honestly believe that some (willful, defiant, sadistic, malicious) children could learn from a spanking, while other children might be deformed into thinking that there were acceptable times for adults to use violence to get what they want.

I recall from my history classes that, according to the French explorers (from the extremely hierarchical, fanatical, and cruel culture of Christian Europe) that the First Nations' ancestors did not hit their children (ie., beat the bejeezus out of them, as they did in Europe), but met selfish, anti-social behaviour with stories told later about the consequences of such behaviour for the characters in the stories. Their children sounded very happy and they grew up to be individuals who impressed the European leaders with their natural nobility.

for the record: I think anyone who consciously desires a child to be insane. To want to have someone who will (or definitely should) fill up your whole life, and who you will have to constantly worry, agonize over for the rest of your days, strikes me as crazy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
To want to have someone who will (or definitely should) fill up your whole life, and who you will have to constantly worry, agonize over for the rest of your days, strikes me as crazy.

---

Well, that's about as honest as it gets! I guess it explains the power of the human sex drive, for one thing

I remember my parents as being very reluctant spankers. I guess I'd say that while they were culturally encouraged to spank or swat, they were personally disinclined to do so.

My mum sees me raising my kids without swatting or spanking, and I can sense she feels relieved and encouraged about the future of humankind, since she was basically taught that it was impossible to raise a child without a spanking. The only time I've even given 'une tape sur la main' was in a futile attempt to get my 3-yr-old, Z, to stop hitting the cat. It went pretty much like this:

-Z hits cat
-mum hits Z (une tape sur la main...)
-cat bites Z
-Z hits cat again
-Z cries and forgets again why and what he shouldn't do

It was so heartbreaking, I had to laugh, and the best thing would have been just to remove the cat and talk it over with Z, even though I don't expect that his behaviour should necessarily change the first time, right away. J, my 7-yr-old, hits Z when Z hits the cat, so I guess I expect more from myself than that. I mean, stuff escalates. I could start hitting J every time he hits his brother, but things would start to get really stupid if I did that.

Part of how I try to control the 'undercurrent of violence' as lagatta has described it, and I think that's a fair way of describing human families, is to turn things toward play as much as possible. When we're highly involved in play, a lot of the frustration and aggression (or I guess you could just call it 'energy') gets channelled into activities that don't end badly.

anne, we live in the country too, and on the road in front of the house cars pass by at 80 kmh. We are also at the top of a hill. In five years, we've lost at least three beloved farm cats to passing cars. There is no way that I'm going to trust that any kind of scolding, spanking or whatever is going to be forceful enough to prevent accidents. So, basically if Z is outside, he's supervised all the time. He doesn't go near the road anyways, because he's been taught by me, my husband and at daycare that cars are very, very, very dangerous things. If he sees a car coming in the driveway, he runs toward the house. I think we might even have gone a bit overboard on this, but...lakes, roads, pools, tractors, animals...there are so many dangers surrounding little kids that there's just no way any should be left without constant adult supervision.
If you swat them, they don't remember what they shouldn't do, they just remember the swat.

anne, i will try, but i find it hard to talk about specific examples because i don't think the same approach could work on every kid. however, i do think that if one is creative enough, one can always come up with a non-violent way of disciplining. forcing ourselves to think really hard to come up with a non-violent way of disciplining, i believe, also teaches the kid to approach a difficult situation with tact and grace as they get older, rather than getting violent.

i am totally against physical violence, especially on someone who clearly has fewer defences. i also think that demon-strating ( ) such violence around kids teaches them to be violent themselves. if being violent is a natural human tendency, then showing kids violence teaches them to take to violence easier and faster before exhausting all alternative non-violent ideas. i was a goody-two shoes as a kid, and only got hit once for crossing a busy street at the wrong time, but my sister got hit a lot by my dad. she was never a 'bad' kid, she wasn't good at math, and my monster-dad is a math teacher. the beatings didn't make my sister smarter; however, she learnt to hit me anytime i did something she didn't like. she's only 2 years older than i am.

i don't think the occasional spanking is abuse, i don't think it scars a kid forever, and i don't think the kid will lose respect or love for the adult for the occasional spanking (although fabfabian's experience tells a different story). anne, you seem to have found that balance between spanking and getting both love and respect with your grandkids. i'm not judging you at all; it sounds like you have a great relationship with all your kids and grandkids, and i'm happy for you. i just think that spanking is unnecessary, and as adults, we really need to work hard to find other ways to discipline our kids. perhaps, this needs a very creative mind, so, maybe not all adults are able to do this. i'm no expert on child-raising, this is just my personal opinion.

when L and Q 'disbehave', i don't see it as disbehaving at all. i see their behaviour as a result of not being able to understand something because they're too young. i see no reason to punish anybody when they just don't understand something, but i know they will learn in time, with or without spanking. L is still too young to understand the difference between road and sidewalk; so i just keep a very close eye on him when we go for walks. i tell him repeatedly that stepping on the road without me means a big, big 'owie' for him. he stays off the road. 2 days later, he forgets what i said, and i repeat it. that's the thing about kids - it's not that they don't learn, they forget things just like anybody else. it was so gratifying for me to find that repeating the same thing over and over again actually worked after a few weeks.

if they have to do something they dislike, like putting away toys or eating cucumber, i try to make it seem like it's the funnest thing in the world. we take a bite of the cucumber, and see what shape the rest of cucumber looks like. first it looks like a moon, and now, it looks like half a moon. how funny! or i say, "look, i can pick up this plane and throw it into the basket from here. can you do that?"

the kids have been fussy and difficult, but i never once felt like hitting them. the sibling rivalry was the hardest. sometimes, i would just sit back and think real hard for 2-3 minutes, what should i do to make be nice to each other. it was usually Q who would push L away and wanted all my attention to herself, while L wanted to follow his big sister everywhere. it got so bad, she even bit him once. usually, i gave Q 80% of my attention, but if she ever acted mean to L and hurt him, i would give L all my attention. i would pick him up, kiss him, do funny things to make him laugh. Q would start sulking. i was careful never to tell her that she had been 'bad' cause i was afraid she would accept the label and act even more accordingly as per the label. (EDIT: similarly, i think spanking condemns the child rather than the action, and could encourage the child to accept that he/she has 'bad' qualities in him/herself, and continue to act 'bad'). i just told her everytime, very very firmly, that she has to say sorry to L, and i let her know i wasn't happy with what she had done. after several weeks, she has realized that its better to share my attention with her brother, rather than have me dote all my attention on L when she has been mean to him. at the same time, L's parents have taught him to say sorry when he does something that upsets his sister, and now Q is so gentle with him, and even acts worried and concerned if L isn't playing games with her!

i discovered last week that Q has learnt the word, 'stupid'. she had trouble getting the playdough out of its container, and she said in frustration, "stupid playdough". i asked her if she knew what 'stupid' meant. she said, it's something 'bad'. i told her 'stupid' meant a person who couldn't understand something easily. we laughed at the absurdity of calling an inanimate object with no brains 'stupid', and she didn't use the word for the rest of the day, although she certainly had plenty of occasions to do that. now, i just hope she doesn't start calling her brother stupid! we'll deal with that problem when we come to it.

i'm sure Q will forget why calling playdough 'stupid' is silly, but i've come to accept that kids don't and can't learn everything all at once. they take a long time to learn certain behaviours. but it's important to be verbally firm and consistent when it comes to encouraging/discouraging certain behaviours.

i find that pretending to feel very hurt, and pulling a looong face by some of Q's actions works on her - like when she used to stick her tongue out at me. she realizes that hurting people isn't good, and stops whatever it is that's hurting somebody. also, now, sticking tongues out is never done unless it is directed at the toy gorrilla who is bullying the other animals in our imaginary forest.

i've noticed that the kids learn more from body language (e.g., long faces) than words. so, i exaggerate all my facial expressions and hand movements around them.

sorry for the long post, but i was trying to give anne specific examples.

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
So WHY if we're doing so much better raising kids in democratic ways are schools needing to hire guards and rent-a-cops to patrol the corridors and why are teachers quitting rather than put up with rude, loud, defiant, and often violent brats?

---

i think the problem begins with parents who let their kids get away with murder when they're very young, and they teach their kids to be proud of themselves, but they forget to teach them that they should respect other people. and i feel that it is a very cultural thing because it seems that security guards are needed at schools here in the west (or in america, anyway) to quell violence between the kids, but there is hardly a need for it in india, say. parents exert far more disciplining measures in india than in the states. 'grounding' is mostly a western concept, but parents in india are more likely to spank. however, in general, the kids in india who are not spanked aren't any less disciplined than the ones who are.

spoilt brats are a result of parents who don't discipline their kids at all - physically or verbally. just because they don't believe in hitting their kids doesn't mean they shouldn't be ordering their kids to do certain things sometimes.

canada and hockey: how many times have we heard of stories where the parents get into nasty fights because the other one's kid didn't play by the rules, or scored a goal that should've been someone else's? these parents are teaching their kids to possess a dangerous level of pride for themselves, they are not teaching their kids to respect other kids, and they are teaching their kids violence.

i forgot to say in my previous post, i totally agreed with brebis noire when she spoke about z, crossing roads and swatting/spanking. brebis, z may be terrified of cars now, but the fear will probably lessen as he gets older and he won't run away when he sees a car. besides which, it's a good fear to have even as an adult.

i knew there was something else i wanted to say. anne, i, too, wish we could be talking about this outside together on a clump of grass surrounded by mountains and water. it sounds so groovy!

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

The problem I have with permissive parenting and "democratic" parenting is based on what I have seen of the results. Kids who are absolute tyrants, kids who are really rotten brats.

---

I think you're combining two semi-related things, here, anne. Parents who do not spank are not necessarily overly permissive. I know some parents who are quite authoritarian who do not resort to spanking.

There are also some parents who are quite permissive until the child has gone too far and then spank. The rules and boundaries are still not clearly defined.

I am a considerably more permissive parent than my mother was, and I am also a democratic parent -- to a point. That's the key. There are rules, there are boundaries, and I am still in charge. My kids are not complete angels, but they're nicely mannered, sociable, affable and behave appropriately most of the time. I've managed to not hit them so far.

I'll tell you how I've dealt with the road thing: Pick the child up and bring her indoors. No more outside for today. Child fusses and cries -- okay, she's allowed to be mad, but I don't give it much attention, and she can't convince me to go back out. Repeat as necessary -- but chances are, you won't have to more than twice.

My kids are pretty easygoing and easy to discipline - except when they're together. That's when things get intense. If they're hurting each other, I separate them and have them sit down and take time out until they're ready to say sorry to each other and play without fighting, or playfight without hurting.

My biggest problem (right now)with my older son is getting him to practise piano. If he puts up a real fuss about practising, then he doesn't get to use the computer until he's practised that same day.

quote:

---

posted by ephemeral: my experience with kids is limited to babysitting. i take care of L who's one-and-a-half Y.O boy, and older sister Q who's 3. ... i discovered last week that Q has learnt the word, 'stupid'. she had trouble getting the playdough out of its container, and she said in frustration, "stupid playdough". i asked her if she knew what 'stupid' meant. she said, it's something 'bad'. i told her 'stupid' meant a person who couldn't understand something easily. we laughed at the absurdity of calling an inanimate object with no brains 'stupid'...

---

I haven't been able to take the time to write a big long post about my thoughts on child raising, but there are a number of books that deal with the concept of punishment and how it is detrimental to children's development. Remember that your child learns about what an adult is supposed to act like from watching you, primarily, and will not make exceptions for the way you treat them, even if you do yourself. How can I tell my child not to hit me, if I turn around and do the same to her? The "I'm the adult" defense may sound very convincing to you, but it won't to them (and it never did to me, when I was a kid).

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Does that mean that I can't call my computer stupid anymore? Or traffic lights that don't provide pedestrians with enough time to cross the road safely? Or child-proof containers that adults can only open with a crowbar? Or anything on television that condescends to viewers.

Gee. What word will I use?

---

well, she's only 3, and she's only just learned the word from somewhere. t'would be a different story if she were 10.

i'm glad i didn't kill the thread with my long post. i tried to provide examples of situations when i could have used spanking, but chose other ways to discipline. these are also all situations where spanking would have definitely been involved by several parents in my culture (from india). to them, there is no way to discipline unless spanking is involved, but here i am proving that wrong. and just think, that for every situation when a child gets spanked, there is a parent somewhere else in the world who manages to discipline a child for the same misbehaviour without resorting to physical violence. spanking is unnecessary, cruel and degrading to the child.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

posted by ephemeral: i'm glad i didn't kill the thread with my long post.

---

A few thoughts:

1) What are you aiming for?: -- :
a) Safety: Don't run into the road; don't run off in shopping centres, etc.
b) Manners: Don't wipe your boogers on other people's pants; don't interrupt when people are speaking; don't frigg with Grandma's china teacups.

2) Degree of rationality:
a) Minimum rationality: To be trainable you have to have enough rationality to know that you aren't supposed to do something and at least some potential for controlling your impulses. Hence, there is no point in even trying to train someone under the age of about 18 months, regardless of the technique or array of techniques you try.

b) Maximum rationality: After about the age of 4 or 5 child has developed sufficient rationality that they ought to be able to be reasoned with under all circumstances.

c) Developing rationality: Between about 18 months and 4 to 5 years your degree of rationality is increasing. It is only in that in-between stage there may be reasonable room for spanking under the following conditions:

i) The issue is a breach of a serious rule (safety-related or over-the-top defiant misconduct).

ii) The issue is one for which verbal warnings and reasoning, and alternatives such as loss of priviledges have already been tried to no effect.

iii) The spanking is followed by a period alone to "think about it."

iv) The spanking is followed by parent hugging child, treating them gently with kisses/caresses, and expressing that love continues even during anger.

(NB: "spanking" defined: up to 3 swats to a clothed tush delivered with open hand whilst recipient is standing.)

3) Temperament:
a) Sensitive: Some children are more sensitive than others. Spanking may be particularly counter-productive if used on a child with a sensitive temperament. My No. 1 Daughter is a particularly sensitive soul. When she was a toddler, a stern look was enough to dissuade her from whatever she was doing. (Never spanked her: never needed to.)

b) Brash: Other kids are naturally fearless, strong-willed, and sassy, like my No. 2 Daughter. Stern looks are ignored. Serious or angry words are met with more of the same. Denial of priviledges and time-outs are laughed at. She's been spanked. It is the only thing that has gotten through to her. After a spanking she is more willing to listen to a rational explanation. After a spanking she will sit and listen to a story, (which is where the real training happens).

E.g. after running off for the Nth time in parking lots and whilst crossing the street, a good swat on No. 2's tush brought tears and enough calmness to sit still and listen to the following:

"A Mommy Bird and a Daddy Bird asked their Baby Bird not to jump out of the nest because she didn't have feathers yet and couldn't fly. But the Baby Bird didn't listen, and jumped out anyway. She fell down and a cat ate her. Mommy Bird and Daddy Bird were very sad because they loved their Baby Bird and wanted her to be safe. We want you to be safe too. When we ask you to hold hands and stay with us when we are crossing the street it is because we want you to be safe. The Baby Bird didn't have feathers and couldn't fly; you are very short and drivers can't see you. That is why it is important for you to hold hands with one of us when we cross the street."

In summary,

- Training is the goal.
- Appealing to a young human's rational nature is a more respectful way of training them and should always be chosen first.
- The toddler/preschool years are the only time where an inherently irrational brute-force technique like spanking can be justified, and justified only in certain temperaments and only as a means of getting enough attention from a youngster that the more rational techniques can be used.

Final thought about parents "owning" children: I wouldn't quite phrase it that way, but to a certain extent I agree with the sentiment---only because the children "own" the parents first.

Consider: Up until about age 10 or so, the parents are the centre of the kids whole universe. The parents are the ones the kids bond strongest with; the parents are the ones the kids are most concerned with pleasing; the parents' love is the love the kids value most; parents' time and attention is the one the kids want most.

In response, the parents are the one's that love the child most. There is an incredibly strong natural bond between children and their parents. It is reasonable then that parents are the ones to undertake the bulk of training and upbringing of the children since parents are the ones the children themselves prefer.

That some parents are not worthy of the love and trust their small children give them, and abuse that love and trust one way or another, wa all consider a tragedy. Avoiding this tragedy is the reasonable impetus for vigilence against child abuse exercised by teachers, doctors, social workers, etc.

At the same time, "experts" make mistakes as well, and abuse has happened (and no doubt continues to happen) in various situations in day-cares, foster-care, and orphanages. And there have been fashions and fads amongst child care experts that were later found harmful: Dr. Spock retracted his previous support of permissive parenting, for example.

When FabFabian notes:

quote:

---

When it comes to cultural differences, it amazes me how when the proposal of criminalizing/abolishing of corporal punishment, those who want to retain this "right" always supplement it with "it is my child, my household and I will see fit how to discipline them."

---

She assumes:

quote:

---

It is a whole "how dare you criticize me and dictate what I do with my child" as if they are property.

---

I have no doubt that is the case for some. However, I seriously doubt that is the majority view. It is more like

"I know this child and his/her temperament better than you. I care for this child 24/7, not 9-5. I will love this child for the rest of my life, not just until my Master's Thesis defence is over. Grant me the respect you expect me to grant you. Trust me that I will not abuse my child."

In most cases they won't.

Really.

Most people are not monsters.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited for formatting by: Fed ]

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Fed ]

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Fed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
[whine]But you didn't give me a word to replace 'stupid' ...[/whine]

Do check out Attachment Parenting . It is based on reciprocal respect between parent and child and it offers excellent strategies in communicating and enforcing boundaries. The approach is neither parent or child-centric; it is relationship-building-centric, in fact.

---

Um. I would have to disagree with you there. Attachment parenting is exceptionally child-centric. Here's an example from "What is Attachment Parenting" on the site linked:

quote:

---

We understand that if a child "misbehaves", instead of reacting to the behavior, we should always examine what has been taking place in his life: what stresses, frustrations or frightening, confusing, or difficult situations he has just experienced. We also need to examine whether we have brought about any of these experiences, intentionally or not. It is our job to be responsive parents, meeting the needs of our child; it is not the child's job to meet our needs for a quiet and perfectly well-behaved child.

---

This is not about a balanced relationship. This is about absolving your child of all responsibility for inappropriate behaviour. Granted, you may in some circumstances want to cut a kid some slack due to overtiredness or stress, but I also think there's quite a gap between expecting your child to be "perfect" and expecting your child to be appropriate.

Now, another article on the site, "The Nurturing Mother" has this to say:

quote:

---

Human inventiveness has made it possible for the newborn to survive without a nurturing mother. In an age where anyone can feed a baby with formula in a bottle, the natural mother is no longer necessary. In fact, our values and priorities are directed toward eliminating or minimizing the child's need for a nurturing mother and the mother’s need to be one. This is not, as I have indicated, a recent innovation. What needs to be stressed is that our intervention in natural mothering was not designed to improve the life of infants, but rather to eliminate, shorten, and alter the infant-mother bond. Wet-nurses, bottle feeding, nannies, and day-care centers came into being so that the biological mother would not have to take care of her child. Forced weaning, early toilet training, and the imposition at a young age of self-care in dressing, feeding, washing, etc. are all representative of efforts to shorten the time that children are dependent on their mothers. The discouragement of carrying infants, sleeping with them, and immediately responding to their crying have changed the mother's protective and nurturing role into one where she conditions her infant to accept life in aloneness. The conversion of the nurturing mother into a conditioner of behavior has altered her role in child development. For thousands of years it has not only been fathers, but mothers also, who have been ignoring babies' crying and imposing harsh and cruel discipline and punishment on them.

---

Bottle-feeding and daycare = harsh and cruel discipline? If you don't breastfeed for an extended period (or at all), means you are not a "natural mother", and you have a lesser bond with your child? I know some mothers (including my own) who would certainly take issue with that.

Then there is this article that suggests, as an example, a mother putting down her child to answer the phone and letting her cry for a few minutes is actually putting the child in a position of shutting down to "survival mode" and, if left to long, actual dissociation, creating long-lasting trauma.

Personally, I think there are some very good ideas in attachment parenting. I've used some of the techniques on my own children. I used a sling, breastfed until they were around 18 mos old or so, nursed on demand, slept with the babies when they were tiny, stuff like that.

But like any other theory or system of childrearing, some of it works and some of it is just silly. Like the idea that it is imperative that your child sleep in your bed, and that you are creating a psychopath if you use a crib. Or that a mother holding her child in her arms as she gives it a bottle isn't giving the child adequate love and attention. Or that you MUST continue to wear your child in a sling even though your back is killing you because if you put them down for a half an hour you'll have traumatized them.

And then there are the heavy-duty attachment parenting converts, the ones who make you feel bad when you confess, at a La Leche League meeting, that you do tend to use a stroller. They are few, but they are vocal, and some are real zealots. It's almost cult-like.

My favourite judgemental tidbit, though, was this:

quote:

---

Furthermore, in most countries other than the US, colic – prolonged periods of inconsolable crying that usually happens in the evening - is unknown, according to pediatrician Ronald Barr, M.D., of Children’s Hospital in Montreal, who conducted numerous studies on infant crying between 1988 and 1997. In fact, in most other parts of the world, babies rarely cry for long periods of time, perhaps because their needs are met immediately by their mothers, who are in constant contact with them.

---

quote:

---

posted by Zoot: What complete and utter tripe. I WAS in constant contact with my baby, her needs WERE met and she still cried 3 hours a day for nearly 3 months.

---

quote:

---

What I liked about "Attachement Parenting" is the recognition of how essential it is to be attentive to the child's, and consequently, one's own needs.

---

Actually, most of the hard-core APers I know are fairly proud of their martyrdom because they always put attentiveness to the child's every twitch ahead of their own needs.

I know that most people are moderate with AP technique, but that site got under my skin. I've seen at least two women scuttle their marriages because they were so busy "nurturing" their children that they forgot to nurture their marriages.

And I don't buy that it's all in the interest of the child, either. Kids are far more resilient than we imagine. I think that putting out this nonsense that not co-sleeping is traumatizing is awful -- what if you can't get a good night's sleep co-sleeping? Is that really good for anyone? Is it really all your fault for not being the Amazing Kreskin when it comes to your kid's feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings if he lobs mashed potatoes at Auntie Patty at Thanksgiving?

quote:

---

posted by Zoot: Actually, most of the hard-core APers I know are fairly proud of their martyrdom because they always put attentiveness to the child's every twitch ahead of their own needs.

---

quote:

---

posted by debeauxos:
What I liked about "Attachement Parenting" is the recognition of how essential it is to be attentive to the child's, and consequently, one's own needs.

---

it is essential to be attentive to the child's needs, but AP advocates doing this so excessively that being attentive to "one's own needs" does not consequently follow. how can you be attentive to your own needs if AP dictates that you have to continue carrying your child in a sling even if your back is about to collapse on you? this excessive devotion to the child does not encourage a child to be independent. instead, it will raise a child who's whiny, overly-dependant on the parents and used to having his/her way with the parents.

But I don't know any parents in real life who use attachment parenting as an overall approach or as anything close to a religion. The parenting approach I've seen that has filled that role is Babywise - even though it has been discredited by doctors, nurses, and the original publishers of the book.

I definitely don't ignore my own needs, but I fail to see how responding to all of the needs of infants and small toddlers (like, up to the age of about 18 months) can be anything but positive. My first baby had colic; incredible colic, mind-blowing colic, the kind that makes you think that there is something medically wrong with your baby. With that kind of crying, the needs of the child and the parent merge: the baby needs to be soothed, and the parent NEEDS the baby to not be crying. With that kind of a baby, I necessarily met the extremes of parenting approaches: my doctor was encouraging me to try AP methods, and some friends were trying to get me to use Babywise (Ezzo) methods. So I studied them both, and the AP methods made more sense. The Babywise methods were child abuse in comparison.

After we all got over that really rough period (about a year), I was able to think through the differences, and didn't continue with AP as an organized approach, it would've demanded definite shifts in life goals. As for Babywise, my short introduction was enough to help me realize that I didn't want to raise my kids 'God's way', if that was what God required.

If obedience is the primary virtue that you're seeking to develop in your kids, then it becomes political. That's basically what Babywise advocates, and it has a few important bases in North American culture: to get parents back into the workforce as quickly as possible (if you only have 2 months mat leave, max, then you'd better get your baby on a schedule early); and to get children to learn from day 1 that what is required from them is unthinking obedience and discipline - whatever they may feel or think is subjugated to a higher power, first parents, then all other authorities.

quote:

---

posted by brebis noire: ... I don't know any parents in real life who use attachment parenting as an overall approach or as anything close to a religion. ... I'm not sure that AP can be blamed for much that's 'wrong' with our kids in North America, I think it's just a way that parents have used to see if they can connect more meaningfully with their own kids. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm more concerned with the philosophy behind an approach than the actual methods used.

---

quote:

---

I remember reading about a tribe in New Guinea, I think, where the children rarely touched the ground until they were about three years old. They were carried by their mothers constantly. Do you figure they all grew up spoiled brats, as the term goes?

---

Probably not. However, I'm willing to bet that if strollers were a safe and available alternative, their mothers would opt for them in a heartbeat.

edited to add: I don't think it's the holding that produces overdependency in AP kids -- it's the parent's complete and undivided focus.

I'm not saying all AP parents are nuts, but I have met some extreme APers, mostly through my involvement with La Leche League. They were, even in that group, a minority, but tended to dominate discussions and guilt or berate other women.

Has anybody ever seen "Mothering" magazine? I found some of their articles on midwife-assisted and drug-free childbirth and breastfeeding really useful, but the articles on how if you are seperated from your child at any time in the first 3 to 5 years, you were "abandoning" him to a "mothering substitute" were pretty insulting. So yes, there are people out there who think like this, and enough of them to make the publication of such a magazine possible.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

posted by Zoot: Has anybody ever seen "Mothering" magazine? I found some of their articles on midwife-assisted and drug-free childbirth and breastfeeding really useful, but the articles on how if you are seperated from your child at any time in the first 3 to 5 years, you were "abandoning" him to a "mothering substitute" were pretty insulting.

---

quote:

---

"Well, if parenting is all I'm going to do, I might as well try to elevate it to the Most Important Thing On Earth."

---

Your sarcasm is wasted on me, Magoo. I do happen to think that parenting is the Most Important Thing On Earth.

quote:

---

I'm not saying all AP parents are nuts, but I have met some extreme APers, mostly through my involvement with La Leche League. They were, even in that group, a minority, but tended to dominate discussions and guilt or berate other women.

---

Hey, I hear you, but why not speak out against what's really bothering you, the judgemental, know-it-all, guilt-tripping attitude of these women, rather than dissing AP by association? AP is just a philosophy, not a scripture. You can take what seems good from it and incorporate it into your parenting as it works for you. For excellent level-headed AP books that don't try to cast all other parenting as child abuse, try the Sears' Baby Books, written by Mr. and Mrs. Sears, both pediatricians and parents of seven or eight kids, all of whom were raised AP (its unfathomable to me, but hey).

quote:

---

You can take what seems good from it and incorporate it into your parenting as it works for you.

---

And so I did -- I could, in fact, be considered an attachment parent. I used a sling, more with my second than my first, as Ms T seemed to need it more, I breastfed exclsively, and even co-slept part of the time. I don't have a problem with people using what works for them. However, although AP is a philosophy, there are still a number of adherents who do treat it as scripture, and can be quite evangelical about it. I had a few of them quite upset with me at an LLL meeting where I told somebody that if what she was doing (I think baby was sleeping in a crib) was working for her and her baby, that she was doing the right thing.

AP is really "marketed" as a whole lifestyle rather than a philosophy that can be taken in whole or in part, and I think it encourages that judgemental, know-it-all attitude.

quote:

---

For excellent level-headed AP books that don't try to cast all other parenting as child abuse, try the Sears' Baby Books, written by Mr. and Mrs. Sears, both pediatricians and parents of seven or eight kids, all of whom were raised AP (its unfathomable to me, but hey).

ncidentally, Sears claims that studies indicate AP children are in fact more independent than other children.

---

Yup, I read a lot of Dr Sears. Some very good advice. And yes, I've heard that claim, but have never been able to actually find the studies to take a closer look. I know anecdotal evidence is not the best kind, but I haven't seen any evidence of this from the AP kids I know -- my daughter has several playmates in that category. They're either about the same, or more dependent. And the more extreme the AP parent, the less able their kids seem to be to deal with other children without parental mediation, in my observation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
Has anybody ever seen "Mothering" magazine? I found some of their articles on midwife-assisted and drug-free childbirth and breastfeeding really useful, but the articles on how if you are seperated from your child at any time in the first 3 to 5 years, you were "abandoning" him to a "mothering substitute" were pretty insulting. So yes, there are people out there who think like this, and enough of them to make the publication of such a magazine possible.

---

So far - six years in - we've never been harangued by an AP zealot, have never met anyone we would even consider an AP zealot, even at La Leche. We have however, run into passive aggressive hostility to anything Dr Spock - or Ferber, Gawd help us - didn't approve of many many many times, and sometimes not so passive. From strangers who demand that we stop nursing in public to the older generation in our own fams who tell us "Co-sleeping is the single biggest killer of infants" and "You're going to spoil that baby if you pick it up when it's crying." and "Now I know it's against your religion or whatever, but sometimes babies need to be spanked."

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
I guess we've had the opposite experience, we are also essentially attachment parenting or what have you, midwifery, co-sleeping, breastfeeding on-demand etc etc. We're not following any dogma, just doing a combo of what suits our personalities and what in the literature struck us as useful.

---

Same experience in our household ronb except for the midwifery which i looked into but didn't feel comfortable with the midwife.

As for the co-sleeping, coming from an east indian background, this is how my husband and i were raised so it seemed pretty natural for us to have our kids in our bed.

My son was speech delayed and when he was two years old, I took him to a speech therapist. She told me that i need to stop nursing him as that is what is causing his speech delay. I asked for some studies/literature supporting this ahh-'diagnosis' and she seemed to draw a blank.
She then informed me that i am holding back my son and not allowing him to become independent. Actually, this piece of info was blurted out in the first 10 minutes of our session and I know that there was really nothing significant discussed in that time- except for i was breast feeding him.

I was actually trying to wean him and i was having the most difficutly at night. Her advice to me?- Feed him candy and chips when he wakes up and wants to nurse. Of course, i never went back to her.

quote:

---

A general attitude that if you aren't Parenting in some deep and meaningful way right this very moment then you're a mixed up loser with their priorities reversed?

---

Funny. I've read quite a few Mothering magazines, and not 15 years ago either - never found a single article that adopted a scolding or accusatory tone. On the contrary, as far as parenting monthlies go, I found it was a gentle voice of sanity in a sea of vindictiveness and crass commercialism. I've never been on the website, so I wouldn't know what that's about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Dear lord periyar. Wean your baby with candy? That's just mind-boggling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Dear lord periyar. Wean your baby with candy? That's just mind-boggling. Imagine how many parents who accepted her advice without question.

---

Yes, actually, i felt bad for parents who may not be well informed or may not challenge the authority/expert figure. She did call me back and ask if i wanted to continue seeing her. I said no and told her exactly why- all framed as some helpful feedback that she may consider when working with other parents.

And brebis noire- a doc who i saw briefly for my son advised that i give him chocolate milk when i told her he wouldn't drink milk. He was under two at the time.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

I think any dogmatically theory-driven approach to child-rearing is probably a Bad Thing. The idea that one approach, one set of responses, is good for all children at all times is quite implausible. Patented Approach to Parenting may work extremely well for one child, and be a disaster for another. How will you know which child yours is? It seems to me a flexible, responsive, pragmatic approach to parenting that draws on a number of sources of collective or expert knowledge for help and insight (the personal experience of older parents, for example) is probably a reasonable way to go, as in the rest of life.

I was largely raised at daycare, and further, my mother followed the philosophy of not rushing to me when I cried. As a result, I wasn't one of those children who cried at every scrape, which, since I was obviously raised with that value, I now consider a Good Thing. If I was raised by different methods embodying different values, perhaps I wouldn't. Which way is better? I don't think that there is a clear way to decide in every case. Maybe it's better to have different kinds of people in our society, with different responses and different upbringings. In any case, the idea of a tiny perfect childhood of perfect development is simply not likely to happen in real life, and people are still going to grow up with issues, no matter how perfect one may try to be as a parent. Again, what if the consensus view of Patented Approach to Parenting later deems it a disaster? Better, it seems to me, to hedge one's bets in the present by adopting a more or less sceptical stance towards any dogmatic claims.

I have friends who have raised their children by what can only be called the Detachment Method. In some cases, the kids are quite fine. In other cases, they are a wreck. I could probably say the same about Attachment Parenting, but I haven't yet seen enough to know, except cases in other cultures that may appear superficially similar.