Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are circumstances where spanking is appropriate and others where it is unnecessary. Use it appropriately and it's a good tool. In my book, it's as simple as that.
I do love all these perfect parents here with perfect children though. You should write books and film videos with advice for those who are just not as great as you.
I'm not a perfect parent. There are no perfect parents. And my kids would be the first to tell you they are not perfect. I do find the idea of inflicting physical pain as discipline to be abhorrent. I use different tools, and it's hard & messy, and sometimes we fail. But I could never, would never, hit them. Why can't you accept that? I don't like spanking--do you actually care what I think? And if you do, why? If you feel confident in your stance, then so be it. My judgement should have no bearing.
I'd appreciate a little explanation because it's hard for me to fathom how an adult can not expect their own child to obey them, ever. Are you saying you expect them always to consider what you are saying and decide whether, in their own judgment, it is something necessary and that they want to do? At what age does that happen?
Parent: Don't write on the couch with markers! You will ruin it!
Two-year-old: (ignores parent and keeps scribbling)
Parent: Oh well, I guess you don't have to obey if you don't want to.
Saying "I don't expect them to obey" means you find it acceptable for them not to obey. You give them a choice, they make a choice, and to be fair you now have to honor it. You don't get to leap over and grab the marker out of the child's hand, because that is de facto forcing them to obey you.
Or maybe you are into natural consequences (which most people are, when the consequence is reasonable).
This is a reasonable natural consequence:
Parent: Please come have lunch now.
Child: No, I don't want to.
Parent: (shrugs) Fine, you can wait until dinner then.
What about this?
Parent: Stop pouring that gallon of milk down the drain.
Child: No, it's fun. (continues pouring)
Parent: Well, now the whole family has no milk for the rest of the week, but I guess we just have to take the natural consequence!
Darn straight I expect my child to obey me when I tell her to do something important, or stop doing something dangerous or destructive. I don't give choices in those matters, because disobedience is not an option. You can obey, or you can have a punishment/consequence and STILL have to obey.
I think the word "obedience" carries a little baggage. I don't want BLIND obedience. I have rarely said, "Because I'm the parent, that's why" in my parenting career. I have always tried to be clear about WHY I expect my kids to do/not do something.
When my daughter was little, she really didn't like hugging people, even her grandparents. She especially hated being picked up by them. When she greeted them, she would refuse to go hug them. If I expected blind obedience, I would say, "Go hug Grandma!" and she would have done it. But, if I said, "Go give Grandma a hug," and she said, "I don't want to," I wouldn't force her. I would then ask, "How about a hearty handshake?" & she would usually do that. Not always. Her obedience to me meant less than her discomfort. It didn't last long, maybe 6 mos. when she was 4ish. After that, it was hug city. "Obedience" implies to me simply following directions. I'm looking for good behavior, which is a little different in my mind. It's often a matter of interpretation of terms.
I'm not a perfect parent. There are no perfect parents. And my kids would be the first to tell you they are not perfect. I do find the idea of inflicting physical pain as discipline to be abhorrent. I use different tools, and it's hard & messy, and sometimes we fail. But I could never, would never, hit them. Why can't you accept that? I don't like spanking--do you actually care what I think? And if you do, why? If you feel confident in your stance, then so be it. My judgement should have no bearing.
First off, my post wasn't even addressed to you. However, you can discipline your children however you see fit. It's no skin off my teeth. But I would kindly ask that you have the same respect for those who have a differing opinion.
First off, my post wasn't even addressed to you. However, you can discipline your children however you see fit. It's no skin off my teeth. But I would kindly ask that you have the same respect for those who have a differing opinion.
You are in a public forum. Please don't take offense to my addressing your public post. None was intended. If you want to have a private conversation, that make it a private conversation. It's always been my understanding that in a public forum, debate was allowed. If you have a different opinion on that, and I am wrong, I apologize.
I have not disrespected anything but the act of striking a child, which I maintain is my right. I have not called you, or anyone, a name. I have not snapped back at anyone. Respecting your right to an opinion does not mean I have to respect the actual opinion. I don't respect the act of striking a child. If you do, that's your right. But I will not, can not, endorse it or say I think it's fine. That's it.
I think the word "obedience" carries a little baggage. I don't want BLIND obedience. I have rarely said, "Because I'm the parent, that's why" in my parenting career. I have always tried to be clear about WHY I expect my kids to do/not do something.
When my daughter was little, she really didn't like hugging people, even her grandparents. She especially hated being picked up by them. When she greeted them, she would refuse to go hug them. If I expected blind obedience, I would say, "Go hug Grandma!" and she would have done it. But, if I said, "Go give Grandma a hug," and she said, "I don't want to," I wouldn't force her. I would then ask, "How about a hearty handshake?" & she would usually do that. Not always. Her obedience to me meant less than her discomfort. It didn't last long, maybe 6 mos. when she was 4ish. After that, it was hug city. "Obedience" implies to me simply following directions. I'm looking for good behavior, which is a little different in my mind. It's often a matter of interpretation of terms.
So maybe that's part of the disconnect?
Yes, I think we are viewing "obedience" somewhat differently. I would not force my children to hug someone either, if they didn't want to. Whether my kids give someone a hug or not is not important, and that's the exact kind of thing a child SHOULD have a choice to do or not do. So I tried not to give "commands" if they were really choices.
I was very big on explaining why I needed my children to do or not do something. On the other hand, if my child was doing something dangerous or destructive, and I said "Stop right now!" I expected them to stop right now. Yes, blind obedience if you want to call it that. They were dumping sand on little brother's head / about to throw a rock at a car / pulling the cat's tail / scribbling on the walls --this makes it sound like my kids were little hellions, but these are just random examples that come to mind of the kind of thing a small child MIGHT do--they needed to stop because I said stop, not because I'd explained why. I explained afterwards, not before.
It seems very dangerous and irresponsible to me to allow a child to think they don't have to do anything until the "why" has been explained to them and they agree with it. There is not always time for that. Furthermore, there are certain things that a small child is just not going to understand the "why" of until he/she is older and more mature.
But "blind obedience" in every case, including trivial ones, "because I'm the parent and I said so"? No. That is not what I mean by obedience.
I think the word "obedience" carries a little baggage. I don't want BLIND obedience. I have rarely said, "Because I'm the parent, that's why" in my parenting career. I have always tried to be clear about WHY I expect my kids to do/not do something.
When my daughter was little, she really didn't like hugging people, even her grandparents. She especially hated being picked up by them. When she greeted them, she would refuse to go hug them. If I expected blind obedience, I would say, "Go hug Grandma!" and she would have done it. But, if I said, "Go give Grandma a hug," and she said, "I don't want to," I wouldn't force her. I would then ask, "How about a hearty handshake?" & she would usually do that. Not always. Her obedience to me meant less than her discomfort. It didn't last long, maybe 6 mos. when she was 4ish. After that, it was hug city. "Obedience" implies to me simply following directions. I'm looking for good behavior, which is a little different in my mind. It's often a matter of interpretation of terms.
So maybe that's part of the disconnect?
Do quit moving the goalposts. No one is suggesting anything like the above. As saibot said, below, "obey" has many meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Yes, I think we are viewing "obedience" somewhat differently. I would not force my children to hug someone either, if they didn't want to. Whether my kids give someone a hug or not is not important, and that's the exact kind of thing a child SHOULD have a choice to do or not do. So I tried not to give "commands" if they were really choices.
I was very big on explaining why I needed my children to do or not do something. On the other hand, if my child was doing something dangerous or destructive, and I said "Stop right now!" I expected them to stop right now. Yes, blind obedience if you want to call it that. They were dumping sand on little brother's head / about to throw a rock at a car / pulling the cat's tail / scribbling on the walls --this makes it sound like my kids were little hellions, but these are just random examples that come to mind of the kind of thing a small child MIGHT do--they needed to stop because I said stop, not because I'd explained why. I explained afterwards, not before.
It seems very dangerous and irresponsible to me to allow a child to think they don't have to do anything until the "why" has been explained to them and they agree with it. There is not always time for that. Furthermore, there are certain things that a small child is just not going to understand the "why" of until he/she is older and more mature.
But "blind obedience" in every case, including trivial ones, "because I'm the parent and I said so"? No. That is not what I mean by obedience.
Now, now! Keep this up and you'll be called "defensive"; you know, the cardinal sin of mental health! /s
I don't think I ever said, "Because I said so", to my kids, though I have to say that was sometimes implied. There! I've said it! I wasn't that perfect parent who in every situation did the right thing on the spur of the moment.
Yes, I think we are viewing "obedience" somewhat differently. I would not force my children to hug someone either, if they didn't want to. Whether my kids give someone a hug or not is not important, and that's the exact kind of thing a child SHOULD have a choice to do or not do. So I tried not to give "commands" if they were really choices.
I was very big on explaining why I needed my children to do or not do something. On the other hand, if my child was doing something dangerous or destructive, and I said "Stop right now!" I expected them to stop right now. Yes, blind obedience if you want to call it that. They were dumping sand on little brother's head / about to throw a rock at a car / pulling the cat's tail / scribbling on the walls --this makes it sound like my kids were little hellions, but these are just random examples that come to mind of the kind of thing a small child MIGHT do--they needed to stop because I said stop, not because I'd explained why. I explained afterwards, not before.
It seems very dangerous and irresponsible to me to allow a child to think they don't have to do anything until the "why" has been explained to them and they agree with it. There is not always time for that. Furthermore, there are certain things that a small child is just not going to understand the "why" of until he/she is older and more mature.
But "blind obedience" in every case, including trivial ones, "because I'm the parent and I said so"? No. That is not what I mean by obedience.
The obedience as the end goal at all is what I object to. Obedience is the antithesis of thinking and learning. It is about doing what they are told.
Clearly if a child is in danger, you do whatever it takes to get them out. But even explaining why is just one of the good tools in a discipline approach. It is a fact that explaining why won't always work to get the necessary behavior because their motivations or what they are expressing in their behavior are going to not care about your why. A straight up explain, punish and reward discipline strategy is inadequate.
You don't catch these things because you are out in the cold.
Bacteria or viruses usually cause pneumonia. Pneumonia usually starts when you breathe the germs into your lungs. You may be more likely to get the disease after having a cold or the flu. These illnesses make it hard for your lungs to fight infection, so it is easier to get pneumonia.
Bronchitis is an inflammation or swelling of the bronchial tubes (bronchi), the air passages between the mouth and nose and the lungs. Bronchitis describes a condition where the lining of the bronchial tubes becomes inflamed. Acute bronchitis is normally caused by viruses, typically those that also cause colds and flu. It can also be caused by bacterial infection and exposure to substances that irritate the lungs, such as tobacco smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, and air pollution.
Being out in the cold *can* exacerbate a pre-existing cough. If you have a cold or the flu than you probably should not be out in the cold air, but if you are healthy, you won't get these things from the cold air.
Oh but you do.
Being originally from the cold country, I don't care much what doctors are saying on this subject (because their priorities now are to explain to public why they are not prescribing antibiotics any more for common colds/flue and so on.) Their concerns/refusal to do it are legitimate, but the way it's presented "it's just the virus" gives the wrong impression that "cold" has nothing to do with it. Did you ever wonder why all these viruses/flues are "moving in" with cold weather - that's the season for them, and they don't strike population en mass at any season - be that summer or spring, when it's warm.
But anyways, since the US has very unsteady climate, I do see under-dressed adults walking in sweat-shirts during winter time, I do see under-dressed children being whisked in and out of the car, and I do observe sometimes both adults and children being oblivious to cold temperatures and not getting sick from it. But then, again, I see a lot of runny noses and great deal of painful coughs, and it's not all about just "viruses." Being under-dressed ( i.e. not in stage of "hypothermia,) but plain cold, is a host to a number of
potentially unpleasant things both in children and adults.
With other words, when my child was young, there was no way he'd be outside without a warm coat, no matter what tantrums he'd throw. No "natural consequences" here, particularly that he already had a bronchitis at the young age. No thanks.
Whoa whoa whoa, so you only advocate for spanking kids when they're too young to understand what's happening and why the person they love and trust the most is hurting them?
Lol no, it's the OTHER way around.
You'd think that they'd TRUST your judgment at this young age when you are saying "no" to them, or "don't do this" or "do that," but they want to push THEIR way instead. Children who TRUST your judgment and listen ( i.e. reacting to the tone of your voice) - why would you want to spank them? There is no need for that.
And since SAFETY is the first concern when kids are young, that's when you have to be stern with them, when they try to push their way.
When they get older and your concerns can be already explained to them ( and negotiated,) that's when things get much easier.
After all spanking is happening mostly with younger kids and for a good reason.
So I am talking about relatively simple cases/explanations here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
