Really OT- Kids on a Plane
by ptizzy on Mar 2, 2010 1:52 PM PST
164 comments
I'll leave Sam Jackson paraphrasing to others.
I recently took a cross-country flight and after the experience posed the question on Facebook: Why do parent endure the torture of cross-country flights and the humiliation of being judged by their fellow travelers? This was not because I disliked having children on the flight, but because the parents seemed to dislike having to be on the flight. I've been a day-care teacher so wrangling wild children for an extended period of time is hardly a new experience for me and I can tune out even the most obnoxious attitudes at this point. Of course, the response was to project the problem onto me, saying in essence if you don't like it get a first class ticket.
First off, parents are too uptight; maybe if they took family free vacations they would relax about a simple question. I know that they will exchange the frustrated glares of travelers they will never see again just to make their own discomfort last a shorter amount of time; we are all selfish creatures that way. I just wondered why they subject themselves to vacationing with young children at all. A vacation should be enjoyable, and until a child can go to the bathroom by themselves I see most travel and vacations as stressful. Why that criteria? A child that can wipe their own ass and get it clean and then use a faucet to wash their hands is going to be able tackle a plate food using utensils and a napkin and you don't end up carrying them around a park all day because they're tired of walking, because unless that kid is about to pass out they're are not going to want to stay in a stroller. I'd love to hear other's opinions on when traveling with a child stops being so uncomfortable.
But it did bring up an interesting set of points to me. When did flying in a relatively relaxed environment become a luxury that costs extra? Should you have to spring for a larger seat and free wine when your wife is a 5 foot Asian that can't absorb alcohol just to avoid being kicked by a 3-year-old? Maybe, however why are there not airlines that cater to either of these two groups? Wouldn't their be some passengers willing to pay a bit more or fly at a slightly less convenient time to be assured the flight would be kid free, or alternatively that the flight will be family friendly and their kids could be less "restrained" (within reason of course)? I know that mothers love the kid-friendly movies where the people know going in that this could have some baby screaming at times, I think there is a niche market here for exploitation.
Who am I kidding? I'm just mad my wife flew through Denver yesterday instead of Phoenix. I could have jumped off and seen the intrasquad game if she had planned appropriately.
Is it bad form to have a first fanpost be so off-topic? I apologize if so.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
164 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
A wise man once said: “Well-behaved children. They are precious blooming flowers in a post-apocalyptic world.”
As a father I always try to be in tune with the impact my son’s presence is in any environment. Maybe because one of my biggest pet peeves is misbehaving kids. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PARENTS ARE RIGHT THERE! Please don’t justify the parents on this flight with having some genetic flaw that all humans have. They don’t. They’re being lazy. GET OFF YOUR ASS TODDLER BRASS!
Earlier this school year, another parent came up to me and said “My daughter pointed your son out and said ’That’s the most polite boy I’ve ever met’”. All I could say was “Thank you”, but the smart-ass in me wanted to say “I’m doing my job, are you?”
Another pet-peeve: People who brag about their children.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
by ResDog on Mar 2, 2010 2:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
+10000000000000000000000000
one of my biggest pet peeves is misbehaving kids. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PARENTS ARE RIGHT THERE!
I understand that children are only capable of whatever behavior they’re capable of depending on their age and development level. I do not understand parents that stand by and watch misbehavior, or tolerate it at all, or think that discipline consists of saying “No” 5,000 times while the child ignores them.
I disagree that it’s merely laziness, however: in some cases I think that parents who were treated poorly as children have decided (affirmatively or subliminally) to let their children get away with everything/run the entire show. In some cases I feel sorry for the parents (especially mothers) who are re-living cycles of abuse by letting their children mistreat them (hitting, screaming, insult, etc.)
On the other hand, reasonably well-behaved children are utterly awesome, as are their parents.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
carp (paraphrased): "117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"
by natteringnabob on Mar 2, 2010 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
On bart the other day, I watched a man patiently try to read his newspaper while a toddler leaned over the seat in front of him making a humming noise right in his face for a good ten minutes while his grandmother sat right next to the kid… Just looking at him. The man never said a word, but shot a few quick glances at the grandmother, who never got the message.
Wayne Rooney, 1/27/09: Cometh The Hour, Cometh The Man
by Useful_Idiot on Mar 2, 2010 10:33 PM PST up reply actions
Had that happen to me once on an airplane. I slapped the grandmother. Problem solved
by E Ticket on Mar 3, 2010 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I don’t think that even the best parenting in the world is going to stop children from crying or misbehaving in public every now and then. What bothers me has never been children acting up in public, but the parents conceding to it.
If I can see that the parent is parenting, I’ll accept that the kid is will get something positive out of the experience and will most likely act better in the future. So I don’t let it bother me. If the parent isn’t doing anything to deal with it, or is dealing with it in a non-constructive way, then I can get pretty annoyed because that’s a kid who is going to make a fuss, or worse, every single time that family goes out anywhere.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 2, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
Toddler brass should behave more like Giants Brass and discipline their kids!
haha I love how Get off your ass toddler brass rhymes
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Mar 5, 2010 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
Your job
Is it not the personality of the kid that has something to do with it?
Also, I want to know your secret.
Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)
by tk on Mar 6, 2010 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
The personality of the kid definitely CAN have something to do with it, but that’s why it’s extremely important for the parents to adjust their kids, so to speak. My brother insists his daughter would be absolutely crazy if he and his wife didn’t parent her well. I could definitely see it. But instead, she’s a ridiculously cool kid. Parenting has a LOT to do with it.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Well I’m sure I’ve taken more credit than I deserve. Genetic personality traits & demeanor I’m sure play a big role. And I was actually a well-behaved child at my son’s age, so I’m still losing hair thinking of his teenage years.
But, I have an agreement with my sister that we can discipline each others children as if they are our own. My hyper-active nephew has always given her a handful at home. Yet he is always well-behaved at my house & loves coming over. My sister thinks me & the mrs are too strict with our son. But I just think we reward good behavior with a lot of affection & a lot of attention. Like I said, well-behaved children are just a joy to be around.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
Why do parent endure the torture of cross-country flights and the humiliation of being judged by their fellow travelers?
Because it’s better than the torture of a cross-country drive?
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I always put my two in the trunk, listened to my FM radio and smoked Marlboros.
by E Ticket on Mar 3, 2010 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
Because it’s better than the torture of a cross-country drive?
It’s possible to pretend they don’t exist in the back seat. Well, semi-possible, and it spares strangers the trauma. These days you can throw a video game at them like a ghost trapper and whistle away the hours listening to a book on tape.
"Career potential: situational lefty." Situation: Ragnarok, bases loaded, Odin at the plate. You know who's getting the call.
-Adopted Giant: Dan Runzler
Until they have to take a leak, stretch their legs, eat something, etc.
I’ve never taken children on a long drive myself, but I certainly recall the horror I felt as a child when my parents decided to take a driving vacation. 8 hours of driving and children simply don’t mix.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
This really makes my point as well. If 8 hours of driving is tough, imagine how 8 hours of flying is on a kid. It’s even more restrictive. The one advantage is that after it is done, you don’t have to get right back on the road the next day. It’s a tough situation that I would want to avoid as much as possible.
The difference is
It’s 8 hours of driving or 90 minutes of flying. 8 hours in the air would be about 4 days in a car.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Better than a covered wagon.
I try to put the traveling thing in perspective. A hundred years or so ago, the common man made the journey across country in a covered wagon. It took weeks and it was extremely dangerous. Just because we can make the trip in a few hours does not guarantee that the experience is pleasurable or even palatable. Most of my trips, with and without kids, have come with the gamut of experiences, from trivial annoyances to huge pains in the ass. There have also been a few that were simply unremarkable to easy trips. But kids, from my experience, have no monopoly on being jerks in public. Drunk guy, loud mouth, snoring guy, a middle seat assignment, all of these things can make your trip a misery. You have two choices- sit there and suck it up and count your blessings you are not in a covered wagon with these people, or politely and very tactfully request that someone please stop doing what it is that is making your trip worse than it should be. I usually do the former unless it is easily remedied and I think I am dealing with a rational human being.
Why would you assume they're on vacation?
Ive taken my kids on as many “function” flights – like funerals, graduations and such as I have “vacation” flights. Some trips are practically unavoidable, whether you have kids or not.
Plotting the ultimate demise of Gore51 (never met him, I dunno he could be swell) so as to adopt Kyle Nicholson.
"I don’t know much about sabre-stats but there’s nothing better than white tea and poptarts first thing in the morning" - tk
by Whiteteaandpoptarts on Mar 2, 2010 3:05 PM PST reply actions
I think the fact that it was a flight from Orlando would mean the majority were on vacation to Disneyworld. I knew there was going to be kids on the flight and didn’t have a problem with that. The parents just seemed really stressed, and I wondered why they decided coming at 3-years-old was better than 6.
A'ight
That works for your “specific” situation, but not for your questions of generalization. People fly with kids because they often must. Granted, must is a relative word, but. As to those who are stressed flying and vacationing with their kids, some are ingrained to believe that they should or must vacation with their children and to do otherwise makes them suspicious people and parents. That shouldnt be a good enough reason, but the messages are indeed strong.
Plotting the ultimate demise of Gore51 (never met him, I dunno he could be swell) so as to adopt Kyle Nicholson.
"I don’t know much about sabre-stats but there’s nothing better than white tea and poptarts first thing in the morning" - tk
by Whiteteaandpoptarts on Mar 3, 2010 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
if it were up to me I would never travel with Mister Toddler
You can blame my wife’s refusal to stand up to her mother and father, IN and OK respectively. My parents live locally like civilized people should.
As for flying in a relatively relaxed environment, that became a luxury that cost extra when they invented flying for the masses in coach. That was, what, around fifty years ago. I make no excuses for Mister Toddler when he is a jerk, but if you want a pleasant flight, you have had to pay extra for longer than I have been alive.
“Train up a child in the way they should grow, and when they are old they will not depart from it.”
Kids are sponges.
They’re also examples of the attentiveness, or lack thereof, of their upbringing and environment.
Speak with/to them early and often and they’re extremely trainable, and as an extension docile. We did this with Jr., and that’s how we were able to fly to the Bay Area when he was two with no incident.
However, as Jr.’s father is wont to say, “I can only drive my own car.”
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Mar 2, 2010 3:32 PM PST reply actions
Exactly. They pretty much only give out what’s put in, as long as you realize that 1) they pick up on everything, including attitudes and small gestures and not just words and 2) misbehavior is programmed in from the beginning.
I’m only a little way along with my son, but I have been fortunate enough to see effective parents in action. As with pretty much everything in life, hard work and effort at the outset pays off in spades down the road.
I'm as tall as Mel - why can't I hit 500 home runs?
by Ott on Mar 2, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
…and also think kids should be taught at an early age how their behavior affects other people.
“Johnny, when you kick the seat in front of you, it bothers the man sitting in that seat, especially if he’s trying to sleep.”
“Susie, when you use your “outdoor voice” inside, it makes it difficult for other people to hear each other talk."
Teaching common courtesy and manners has always been a priority for me. My son is 14 now and pretty well-behaved. (If only I could get him to chew with his mouth closed.)
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
“My son” is actually what Goofus calls his penis.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 2, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Can you confirm he’s “14” ?!
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
Not without Olympic-style testing.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 3, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t want anyone to think I’m blaming the kids for being just that, kids. It’s tough for them to sit still for 5 minutes, let alone 8 hours. And parents are usually doing the best they can. My original point was that is a challenge that I would avoid if at all possible with short traveling schedules, especially when they are young. When it was assumed I was complaining about some kids on the plane I just was perplexed why it became incumbent upon me to avoid undiscplined children by paying more for a first class seat. I wouldn’t avoid children because I actually do like them and by and large when I look at them and they suddenly want to be close to their parents. I just look mean.
Once you have kids, the theory of relativity kicks in. A vacation with kids is better than not being on vacation with kids. Being out to dinner with kids is better than not being out to dinner with kids. You are willing to do pretty much anything you can to get out of the house and be a part of society. Yeah, it’s a pain to bring diapers and try to keep them from crying, but it’s still a vacation.
As far as dealing with other peoples’ crying kids…yeah, it sucks, but you also pay to go to the ballpark and have to deal with the idiots around you there. It’s just something in life you have to deal with.
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
When I flew home from France back in January, I thought I was in for 14 hours of torture, because I counted 6 babies on the flight, all in coach. Did not hear a peep out of them. So I’d say it definitely depends on the children/parents – the parents obviously knew that their children would stay quiet or they knew how to handle any potential situation with them.
Then again, I was on a flight from San Jose to Los Angeles that lasted maybe 50 minutes where there was a baby crying almost constantly. Maybe it’s the inter-continental aspect that attracts the more well-behaved kids.
"I think I realized after the second or third punch, I should have taken his helmet off sooner." - Ryane Clowe
Proud member of the "Re-Sign Marleau" Club
Fools and Sages
That would be what you call "luck".
There are ways of improving the odds that a baby will behave well on a plane, but I don’t believe there’s anyone who could take their baby on a 14-hour flight and be sure they will behave the whole time. 6 babies for 14 hours with no fussing requires not only good parenting but a hefty dose of good fortune.
The repetition is awesome. I think I’ll just start copying other people’s posts verbatim.
A hefty dose of tranquilizers, you mean.
It was a flight from France, right? Maybe the kids were wasted.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Yeah, flight from Paris to San Francisco. Plus a five-hour delay before the flight took off, including two hours on the plane. So, in reality, 19 hours of travel. It was pretty amazing.
"I think I realized after the second or third punch, I should have taken his helmet off sooner." - Ryane Clowe
Proud member of the "Re-Sign Marleau" Club
Fools and Sages
crying babies on airplanes is another strong argument for legalizing marijuana
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
and concealed weapons. ammo is faster and chepaer
by E Ticket on Mar 3, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
I was on a flight from San Jose to Los Angeles that lasted maybe 50 minutes where there was a baby crying almost constantly.
Well, consider the destination!
Sounds like the baby did.
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Mar 2, 2010 7:55 PM PST reply actions
Or Snakes On a Plane
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Mar 6, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
I am sick and tired of these mother****ing kids on this mother****ing plane!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Mar 6, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The sad truth is that many parents just don’t parent. They want to be their child’s best friend. Or they just expect the kid to grow up without any parental involvement whatsoever. And now? Man. The number of parents I see completely ignoring their children because the parents are too busy on their damn cell phones…
/backs slowly away from the discussion
it's ok
they can be domesticated in school.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
carp (paraphrased): "117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"
by natteringnabob on Mar 2, 2010 8:43 PM PST up reply actions
When my 7 and 4 year old kids tell me I’m “harsh”, I tell them I must be doing something right. I admit that my years of trying to instill certain behaviors in them isn’t always successful, but it sure as hell isn’t for lack of trying. And I don’t intend to give up just yet.
As to the original topic – we take our kids on planes when we need to in order to get across country or over the ocean. It’s a challenge, but I don’t expect to remain housebound (or California-bound) for 20 years while they grow up. For me, I’d rather sit next to a chatty kid than a smelly fat guy. But that’s just me.
It's my blarg! Quick Pitch
And I tweet (more often than I blarg).
Kevin Smith resents your implication.
The repetition is awesome. I think I’ll just start copying other people’s posts verbatim.
Man oh man, that guy got really fat. When did that happen?
It's my blarg! Quick Pitch
And I tweet (more often than I blarg).
Sounds like my sister in law
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Mar 6, 2010 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
A pet peeve of mine that I only recently aquired was parents that talk to their kids constantly in baby talk. A couple that I know has kids age 3-4ish and 6-7ish and they already speak English better than I do, which I assume is directly related to the fact that their parents talk to them like they would talk to anybody else; it actually makes them 10000x times more adorable than a kid that can’t pronounce their R’s and L’s.
Adopted father of the prettiest player in the organization, Nestor Rojas.
When a child is very young, higher tones catch and hold their attention better. So theoretically, baby talk is actually better for at least developing the recognition of speech in very young children. When that stops being useful, I’m not sure, but baby talk actually does serve some developmental purposes.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 2, 2010 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
I believe it
I didn’t really mean when they were still babies on planes, probably about when start making sentences.
Adopted father of the prettiest player in the organization, Nestor Rojas.
by stealth snail on Mar 3, 2010 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
oh lordy...
*when they start making sentences…
Adopted father of the prettiest player in the organization, Nestor Rojas.
by stealth snail on Mar 3, 2010 1:01 AM PST up reply actions
Do you want to making sentences?
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 3, 2010 8:09 AM PST up reply actions
It depends what you mean by baby talk. Your tone should change when you’re dealing with infants, but the basic vocabulary should not. There is never a reason to use non-words (goo go,.wittle babi, etc..) when you can use actual words witha different tone.
We do that with the cat all the time. “Who’s a wittle shit head? Iz you a big dopey kitty fucktard? Yes you is… you stupid little dumbshit…” It’s all in the tone of voice, she will roll around on the floor and purr and come over to snuggle, even though the whole time I’m calling her names cuz she just hairballed on the carpet or something annoying that’s not really her fault.
I have to type in babytalk so that Howie will read my entire post
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
tlp;dr
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 3, 2010 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Worse.
Idiot new age parents who try to reason with a 4 year old who is throwing food around in a restaurant, and attempting to explain to said munchkin how that
“throwing food is not acceptable, and it may have negative consequences, and reflect poorly on the munchkin and the munchkin’s parents”
Fuck it man.Tell him once, twice maybe. If he gives you the defiant “go fuck yerself pops” look grab him by the collar and lock him in the trunk until he’s had the shit scared out of him, let him out and tell him the next time, you arer not going to let him out. That will end that shit permanently.
And will also ensure that the kid will never drive anything other than a motorcycle or a pickup truck
by E Ticket on Mar 3, 2010 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
Intimidation needs to be established early. I remember getting hit by my father three times when I was a small child. That bought him about 10 years of just having to give me a look for me to behave.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
I think that negative reinforcement is a perfectly valid way of teaching good behavior. Positive reinforcement is obviously the more desirable choice, but people often only learn lessons by being made to feel like shit after doing something wrong. I also believe that punishing a child physically is a perfectly valid form of negative reinforcement within reason. There’s negative reinforcement, there’s physical negative reinforcement, and there’s abuse, and it’s true that the line is very thin between the last two. It’s also true that it’s a good idea to never ever approach that line.
I think that it would take a pretty extreme situation to get me to spank any children that I end up having, and that’s just my own personal temperament. I don’t think spankings are necessarily the evil tool of bad parents. They can be an effective tool for good parents, too.
The words “getting hit” sound bad like that, but I have a hard time believing that ResDog’s dad was doing something awful like punching him the face. He said it only happened three times, so that shows conscious restraint from his dad. He also says that it worked, which shows that his behavior was appropriately negatively reinforced. Without knowing more, I see nothing at all to get squeamish about.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
I will begin by this: the attitude – and laws – regarding physical punishment are very different where I’m from. I’m taking the liberty of assuming that you don’t know this, because you have no reason to. I was 10 years old when I found out that friends of the family, who live in Britain, hit their child as a form of education, and I was horrified by it. I’ve since learned that this is not only legal but also common in most countries (though fewer and fewer over the past 20 years or so) – but while that has made it pretty clear to me that I have no right or reason to judge people for the act, it has done nothing to change my opinion regarding the act itself. I would hope that my record here is enough to clarify that my feelings about this are authentic, and not the result of some false sense of cultural superiority.
You’ve explained (eloquently, as always) why you see nothing wrong with physical punishment, and I respect that, but I don’t appreciate being told that I have “nothing at all to get squeamish about”. I find the hitting of children to be inherently wrong, and I believe that I have the full right to say so, especially in response to someone arguing the opposite, which ResDog very clearly has.
To be honest, I feel a bit out of my league here. When I first read E’s comment, I assumed that he was joking about the trunk part, but then wasn’t sure. I’m still not sure. When I read ResDog’s first sentence, I was absolutely positive that he was joking, but very soon realized I was wrong. I have no idea how to approach this without offending anyone. All I can say is that I don’t think that a child should be absolutely frightened of his father, regardless of whether or not it makes the child polite (which I’m sure it does), and that I think that “getting hit” more than just sounds bad.
And that when a parent hits their child, odds are that that parent is angry; and that it has to be hard to hit someone while being angry at them, without letting that anger affect the hitting; and if that happens, if the hitting becomes (at least partially) a form of expression of anger and frustration, it is no longer violent education, but simply violence. I do not know how many parents can successfully prevent that from happening, and how many can’t – but I’m positive that many in the latter group are sure that they’re in the first.
And, finally, that if you truly think that the line between “physical negative reinforcement” and “abuse” is very thin, and if you think that child abuse is a horrible thing, which you obviously do, then the only logical conclusion I can see is to avoid – and ban – physical punishment altogether. The potential value of parents even coming close to such a thin line can not possibly outweigh the disastrous potential damage of crossing it.
I was promised lasagna.
Throwing another opinion in here.
I agree with E Ticket and ResDog, and was going to respond to this earlier comment with a similar sentiment but then decided against it because I thought I saw a chasm lurking.
Wow, remind me to never be your son.
howtheyscored put it pretty well.
I don’t have anything to add to their thoughts, just bringing the vote count up on one side, so to speak.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
This has gotten “hit/spank”-specific.
How about, say, arm-twisting? I’ve seen my dad respond to rude behavior by my brother involving poking and grabbing (the usual juvenile playground sort of stuff) by responding in such a manner.
He didn’t lose his cool, and it sent a clear message that one can’t behave in such a manner with impunity.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
I'm with you.
Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)
by tk on Mar 6, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
What sucks is that it’s common and encouraged by most parents to spank. But many leading child psychologists would tell you that spanking and hitting isn’t a good thing.
I totally agree. I’d rather my kids be parented to understand that we don’t hit because hitting doesn’t solve problems, and isn’t something to be encouraged.
But different people parent in different ways, and sometimes it works for some people. I don’t believe in it, and wouldn’t encourage it, but I guess some people think it’s fine, and that’s up to them. I was spanked as a kid and am no worse for it, but I don’t spank my kids, nor do I intend to do so at any point.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
This is all quite loaded, so I’ll try to be both careful and honest.
First, I apologize for the squeamish comment. I meant to express simply that the comment did not make me squeamish personally, but I shouldn’t have implied any command or direction for your own feelings.
Also, I agree with you, largely.
All I can say is that I don’t think that a child should be absolutely frightened of his father, regardless of whether or not it makes the child polite.
I agree with this. I guess one of the major flaws in my comment above is its tacit agreement with the principle of intimidation, which comes up in ResDog’s comment. There should have been a more explicit disagreement with that principle from the start. I don’t think that a child should be frightened by or of a parent, and when used effectively I don’t think that spanking is a tool of intimidation or of fear. Or, at least, not in the sense that a child is frightened or intimidated by a bully. Bullying is not parenting. Not even a little.
But the truth seems to me to be that basically every form of negative reinforcement is tied into fear. Children don’t try not to disappoint or anger, or sadden their parents because they aren’t afraid of the consequences of that disappointment, anger, or sadness. It’s not because they aren’t trying to avoid being the cause of the parents’ distress.
And the effectiveness of negative reinforcement comes from the expression and actualization of those fears. When a parent is disappointed, angered, saddened, etc., and expresses it in a way that demonstrates the honesty of that sentiment to a child, it’s not the act of expression that the child is reacting to but the thing being expressed. If the child causes a parent to cry, ideally it’s not the crying that the child is responding to. I mean, the child is affected by the tears, but the learning response is coming from a deeper empathy.
Similarly, I see physical punishment. The child should never be reacting to being spanked, or hit. Though I’m reluctant to say “being hit” because it’s an extremely loaded phrase that I think is too easy to misread, I will use it for the sake of avoiding euphemism and limiting the discussion too much. But just as people express themselves verbally or emotionally, I honestly believe in the value of physical expression.
In all of the cases, great control and restraint is necessary. I think that verbal abuse is also a problem, but had ResDog said that his dad yelled at him and said nasty things, I think (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth again) that we’d be having a different conversation. As you say so eloquently here:
And that when a parent hits their child, odds are that that parent is angry; and that it has to be hard to hit someone while being angry at them, without letting that anger affect the hitting; and if that happens, if the hitting becomes (at least partially) a form of expression of anger and frustration, it is no longer violent education, but simply violence.
The same applies to yelling. If you let yourself slip into an area where you’re too affected to control the strength or frequency of your swing, you’re still damaging the child. Or if you let a sadness or depression affect your parenting too strongly, you’re still damaging the child. You act to express yourself to the child. You don’t act to hurt the child. In all cases. No exclusions.
That said, I have to admit again that it is a finer line and a more difficult distinction when talking about actually laying a hand on a child. Which brings us to…
And, finally, that if you truly think that the line between "physical negative reinforcement" and "abuse" is very thin, and if you think that child abuse is a horrible thing, which you obviously do, then the only logical conclusion I can see is to avoid – and ban – physical punishment altogether.
I agree and disagree with this. It pains me to say that too many people don’t understand, don’t make the effort, or are simply incapable of treading that line. And I absolutely think that we’re right to have hitting as at least a deep social taboo. I even think that we’re right to react (in your view) or overreact (in my view) to minor instances that may not be pushing that line. What I don’t know is how comfortable I am pushing that resolve to an enforceable limit. Anything that is abuse should not be tolerated socially or lawfully. I have no squeams (sorry) about saying that. But when parents are acting responsibly (again, by my view), I’m not perfectly comfortable with stripping them completely of a viable parenting tool.
It’s a very difficult question. I hope you understand that I never meant to condone hitting, or physical punishment. I simply meant to defend it as far as I personally see it being defensible. And despite my clumsiness, I never meant to fall on the side of intimidation either. Expression – that’s my line.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
My father practiced the bullying style in almost aspects of life. Is it the best way to raise a child? Definitely not. But I wasn’t “hit” often & didn’t need to for a long time and when I did it was never anything that wasn’t on the rear (pause and think of my rear for a second). After that 10 year period, did I get hit? Yes. Did I deserve it? Well does anyone? If you can think of any scenarios where someone deserves to get hit then I did a couple of things like that. Was I scared of my dad? Hell yes. Like I said, it worked on me. He was also my best man at my wedding. My wife got ‘the cinto’ every now & again from her mother. You know who her best friend is now? Moms. We might need therapy.
I don’t raise my son the same way. I found quickly that the ‘time-outs’ were a more effective (affective?) way to punish him. Have I ever spanked him? Yes I have. Nothing that would make your bum even change to pink, only to get his attention as he’s about to go to time-out. That hasn’t happened in years now that he understands the ramnifications of his actions (“No, take away anything but the DSi!”). My son might be intimidated by me, but only when he’s done something wrong. When I said “Intimidation needs to start early”, for any parenting style that meant that the punishments (whatever form you may choose to take) need to start early. Because later the need to discipline will not happen as often.
I understand how small spankings can turn to abuse or that others might have an opinion that a small spanking itself is abuse. This is obviously a taboo topic where some people often have strong opinions on the matter. Me? I try not to have strong opinions on any subject. I respect everyone’s opinion here and you & Cookyman have obviously spent more time thinking about this more than I have (and probably should have). I live my life one way & never tell others how to live theirs. What’s good for me, isn’t what’s best for others. Until I walk in their shoes (which you can never do), then I don’t judge.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
Well and there’s a difference between a swat on the ass, a spanking, and a beating. There’s nothing wrong with giving a two year old a swat on the butt when they repeatedly reach for a hot stove or run out into the street. Smacking an eight year old is unnecessary and unproductive. Most of the “academic” sort of stuff I’ve read on the art of discipline seems to conclude that after the age of ~2 – ~4 (it varies with the cognitive level of the child in question) spanking does no good.
When I read ResDog’s first sentence, I was absolutely positive that he was joking, but very soon realized I was wrong.
I realized it in the second sentence as well. :)
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Mar 5, 2010 8:09 PM PST up reply actions
I guess at 31 I am in with the older generations on MCC? Beatings as a kid (and yes, I’ll use the phrase ‘beatings’ where a red-ass was the intended goal) was actually a common form of discipline. Being ‘scared of your father’ as a reason for not doing bad stuff was the objective. That may seem archaic to some, but my situation was not unique and I don’t blame my father for anything that has gone wrong with my life. In fact, I give him most of the credit for the good.
And I’m really sorry to the MCC if they are upset that my child is scared of me (not that he’ll get a ‘beating’) if he does something wrong. But my child knows the difference between right & wrong now. If I had to be the bad guy to achieve that goal, it sucks for me, not you.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
I think it’s just a touchy subject. Even for all of my trying, I’m pretty sure I never actually said what I meant to say. And in the process, I learned some things, too. You seem to be a successful parent, and a well-adjusted son, and I think that’s great. But yeah, it’s a touchy subject. It’s bound to bring out a lot of reactions and responses.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 7, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I’m a year older than you and never had this happen to me — but I also realize there’s going to be less physical punishment administered to a girl. I’m pretty much positive my parents wouldn’t have hit me even if I’d been a boy. I asked my mom about this and she said she thought, honestly, it was due to the upbringing of the parents themselves — if they were beaten and turned out happy and adjusted (like you did) they’ll think it’s a good way to do things; if they weren’t beaten and turned out happy and adjusted they’ll think THAT’s the way to raise a kid (like I do); and if they were beaten, like both my parents, and wound up hating their parents, they won’t lay a hand on their kid.
Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)
by tk on Mar 7, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly, I think the biggest thing for any parent is having well-adjusted kids with a good moral compass, and to have a good relationship with their kids. For what I know of you, you’d seem to be a well-adjusted person, and the fact that your dad was your Best Man would indicate that he’s a successful parent, right?
Regardless, we’re all human. Even as parents we’re going to make mistakes. All we can do is the best we can for our kids, so as long as your objective with your kid is to make him a better person, I applaud you.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I’m an advocate of parents raising their children, so the notion of NOT taking kids with you on vacation (or wherever) is as foreign to me as the idea of TAKING kids on vacation is to you.
I’m on vacation with my family right now. And I can tell you definitively that I’d miss the hell out of my girls (3 year-old and 8-month-old) if I left them behind, even for part of the week.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I was under the impression that the point was that you shouldn’t go on vacation with little kids, not that you should simply leave your kids at home.
As for little kids and their behavior. I’m ok with the occasional crying, but it’s pretty easy to tell when the noise is resulting from something understandable like a dirty diaper or hungry baby, but pretty much anything else should not be tolerated by parents. Once a child can talk, it has not business being a nuisance in public. My little brother never once cried or was loud in public after turning three, and from what my parents have told me, I never did either. From what I saw of how they raised my brother, that comes from parents ensuring their kids understand what acceptable behavior is. And that starts at home. There are an awful lot of kids who’s parents just let them throw tantrums without any consequences, or even raised voices. In my opinion, such behavior should not be acceptable, even in private. Once that is made clear to children, it won’t happen in public either.
that is true to some extent, but I have a very well behaved 3 year old daughter, and there are times when she will act out in public. The duration is short, but it does happen. This behavior is all about testing limits, and seeing what they can get away with (for the most part. At the end of a long day, all the coping skills of youngsters are just gone. Hell, after a few long days my coping skills go into the toilet as well).
Is this a pet peeve thread? If so, I have a new pet eeve this year. I hate it when, at a turnstile and there are two very distinguishable lines and people walk to the front of the lines and form a third or fourth line!
My career path, have you seen it?
People who don’t wait their turn should be jailed. Or shot. Just get them out of society.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
Kids
I have one, and I was once one. And they are not rational beings, and sometimes it’s impossible to control them. It’s all part of the circle of life. Get over it. And don’t act like you didn’t piss adults off at some point, or many points, when you were young. You did.
I didn’t.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 3:24 PM PST up reply actions
You’re making up for it now.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
Sorry about that. I had a rough childhood. Dad beat me up.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
That's pretty horrifying.
I mean seriously, that’s an absolutely awful thought.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Which does, I admit, with what I hope is no disrespect to you, cause my to read your above comment in a completely new light.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:12 PM PST up reply actions
Well in hindsight, it was a very tactless attempt at humor. So full steam ahead with the disrespect towards me.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
Did not!
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:12 PM PST up reply actions
Dog aren't rational beings either
And mine ar better behaved than most children of the same age. I don’t even have to beat ’em.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Dogs may not be rational, but most of them are pretty simpleminded. It’s harder to train a kid to do something by waving some jerky in front of their face. It won’t stop me from trying. I’m just expecting it to take a while.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
And if you try to rub a kid’s face in their shit to try and stop them from crapping in their diaper, CPS is going to pay you a visit.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
That doesn't work with dogs.
You have to lock them in a crate at night so they learn to hold it, then force them outside first thing in the morning.
That’s the fastest way, at least.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Oh boy... digging a hole....
I need to be more careful about what I do and don’t actually respond to in a comment.
Again, my comment failed to pay enough heed to the one above it. It looks like I’m arguing for beatings. Which I’m not. I meant only to touch on a capacity for communication and understanding that children have with regard to punishment that dogs don’t. Comparing children to dogs, while fun, seems kind of… lacking.
A big difference between dogs and kids is that negative reinforcement does not work on dogs. There is absolutely no way to express to a dog what they’re being punished for or why they’re being punished. And it’s ludicrous to try to punish a behavior by doing anything but failing to associate it with something positive. That’s just the nature of the communication breach. It’s easy to associate an act or behavior positively. A dog wants to get treats! They don’t actually understand that their behavior is being more useful than that, though. “I do this to get treats!” is kind of the same problem as “I did this and was punished!”. The dog doesn’t understand why. They just understand the result. The good thing is that positive reinforcement curbs negative behavior. “I do this and get treats (or love or attention or something desirable” leads to “I do this and nothing good happens” which is a useful thought process that doesn’t call for punishment. A dog wants to get the desirable outcome and if you reward them properly they will stop doing the things that don’t get it. Meanwhile, negative reinforcement is just damaging for a dog. They might know what they don’t want to do. But they don’t know what they do want to do. They don’t know the limits or restrictions on the bad behavior. “I got hit for pooping… should I stop pooping?” is not a useful correlation, but it an easy one to make.
The psychology of a child is not the same. You don’t give a child a snickers bar every time they do something you like, do you? Does that make the child try to do the things that will get him a snickers bar, or does it simply make the child feel entitled to snickers bars?
Do you not punish your children for anything? Do you not express any kind of discontent with their behavior? Do you not try to make them understand the actual significance, rather than simply the consequences, of their actions, both good and bad? I can’t speak for you, but I don’t imagine so.
I mean, I never should have been so flippant in a response to a comment that used the words “beat ’em.” That was my mistake entirely. I’m not justifying beatings. That would be absolutely disgusting. I’m simply saying that kids do not equal dogs.
I guess I’m really expressing myself poorly in general here.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
I mean, the LAST thing that I want to happen here is for it to seem like I’m actually coming out in favor of violence. Yes, I see some utility is physical expression, but I don’t think that expressing yourself physically is the same as expressing yourself violently. And I think that’s as true for positive feelings as well as negative ones. If you want to express positive feelings, you give somebody a hug. But you don’t dislocate their shoulder while doing it. Or you high-five to express excitement, but you don’t high five with your foreheads (that’s a silly example). If you love somebody, yo express that physically. But you know the limits. You don’t fuck your wife in public because you’re so overcome with emotion. It seems strange to me that expressing negative feelings physically. If you’re annoyed, maybe you do push somebody away to make a point. But you don’t punch them in the nose.
I don’t condone or defend violence. As I say above, I do defend expression. And also as I say above, I don’t even condone all forms of expression. But people do express themselves physically. It’s one of the most basic forms of communication. I don’t personally see the utility in shutting that down for an entire half of our emotional spectrum.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
Just finishing my half sentence.
“It seems strange to me that expressing negative feelings physically doesn’t follow the same basic rubric.”
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think that expressing yourself physically is the same as expressing yourself violently.
This is the thought here that I really agree with. It’s the counterpoint to this:
the only logical conclusion I can see is to avoid – and ban – physical punishment altogether
…which I vehemently disagree with but haven’t been able to put that disagreement into words.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
to add my $.02
I think spankings have their place, but I do think what behaviors you’re punishing has to play a key role. (Not crossing into abuse is taken for granted in this post). I’ll never forget when I was around 13 I saw a mother (not mine) smack a kid for hitting his brother. Even at the time, I was thinking how monumentally confusing this was to the kid. Yes, he shouldn’t have hit his brother, however the punishment for hitting was…hitting? Makes no sense. I was spanked as a kid, but never enough that I was really hurt. Did I deserve it? Probably. Am I mentally damaged? No. This was an appropriate punishment for my transgressions at the time, nothing more.
Am I mentally damaged? No.
Come oooooooooooooooon… Tell the truth!
I was thinking how monumentally confusing this was to the kid.
This here is a big part of why I don’t believe in spanking/hitting. Part of the parenting style my wife and I practice is to help our kids deal with their feelings. Hitting them doesn’t teach them to deal with their emotions in a constructive manner. If a kid is being a jerk, do you think spanking is going to teach him to be a better kid, or is it just going to teach him to be more careful about not getting caught?
I particularly appreciate this quote from Dr. Sears, in the link I’d included above:
Our general impression is that parents spank less as their experience increases. Spanking doesn’t work for the child, for the parents, or for society. Spanking does not promote good behavior, it creates a distance between parent and child, and it contributes to a violent society. Parents who rely on punishment as their primary mode of discipline don’t grow in their knowledge of their child. It keeps them from creating better alternatives, which would help them to know their child and build a better relationship. In the process of raising our own eight children, we have also concluded that spanking doesn’t work. We found ourselves spanking less and less as our experience and the number of children increased. In our home, we have programmed ourselves against spanking and are committed to creating an attitude within our children, and an atmosphere within our home, that renders spanking unnecessary. Since spanking is not an option, we have been forced to come up with better alternatives. This has not only made us better parents, but in the long run we believe it has created more sensitive and well-behaved children.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
There are other reasons to punish than emotional responses.
My parents, for instance, never really touched my sister or me unless we were performing an act that was inherently dangerous. For instance, I’d often get a rap on the knuckles for playing near a working cook-top (especially with boiling water, one of my relatives actually died from knock a pot of hot water on himself), a stronger than strictly necessary arm yank when screwing around in a crosswalk, or a charlie horse when horsing around in a moving car. Particularly so if verbal warnings had already been issued. I don’t think striking a child is appropriate for simple discipline, but there are situations where the inherent danger of the behavior far outweighs the potential damages of corporal punishment.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I’m not sure how yanking an arm when a kid is screwing around in a crosswalk is a punishment as much as protection for a child’s safety. That example seems more like splitting hairs in definitions.
Regarding rapping knuckles, I’ll refer back to Dr. Sears again:
How tempting it is to slap those daring little hands! Many parents do it without thinking, but consider the consequences. Maria Montessori, one of the earliest opponents of slapping children’s hands, believed that children’s hands are tools for exploring, an extension of the child’s natural curiosity. Slapping them sends a powerful negative message. Sensitive parents we have interviewed all agree that the hands should be off-limits for physical punishment. Research supports this idea. Psychologists studied a group of sixteen fourteen-month-olds playing with their mothers. When one group of toddlers tried to grab a forbidden object, they received a slap on the hand; the other group of toddlers did not receive physical punishment. In follow-up studies of these children seven months later, the punished babies were found to be less skilled at exploring their environment. Better to separate the child from the object or supervise his exploration and leave little hands unhurt.
It’s crazy how much everyone wants to justify physical punishment on children. I find it unsettling. If it works for you and your kid, that’s fine… Just try to understand that there’s alternatives out there to spankings and charlie horses. Again, I’d encourage anyone who’s okay with it to read up on Dr. Sears. More often than not, there’s going to be some alternative that will work instead of the physical.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Interesting qoute.
However, even without knowing the specifics, I have question the methodology. If the test were an accurate reflection of the “punishment” I’m describing, where rap on the hand would come with regards to inherently dangerous ones. Considering the ethics involved in human experimentation, I don’t think the toddlers were allowed to stick their hands on burning-hot stove top grates, or catch their fingers in moving machinery.
Like I said, this is for situations where the activity you’re proscribing poses an immediate threat (or an unlikely one that’s sufficiently dire), and the “punishment” is essentially a tool to force the child to immediately cease in a situation where reasoning and more time-intensive means of dealing with the situation are not viable.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Yeah, it’s like I said right below, before reading your reply… I can understand using some force to keep a child from a dangerous situation, but if the kid isn’t told the WHY of the force or punishment, it’s likely the object the kid is removed from is simply viewed as a forbidden fruit.
But again, the examples I’m seeing aren’t necessarily punishment-type situations. For example, if my daughter were to try and stick her hand in the fireplace while a fire is burning, I’d pull her away as quickly as possible. But I wouldn’t smack her hand out of the way, or give her a spanking as a means of protecting her. I’d pull her away, and at least attempt to make sure she understands WHY it’s dangerous. If that doesn’t work, then I’d remove her from the area that’s a danger. Or with my younger daughter, who’s too young to understand us when we say, “That’ll burn the daylights out of your hand, don’t touch!” we’d instead pull her away from the immediate danger and look to control her play. She’s 8 months and isn’t crawling, so it’s pretty easy to control that. But when she’s old enough to crawl but not old enough to understand language, we’ll still keep a watchful eye on her and use other means of keeping her out of the fire.
It’s not a situation that’s going to call for physical “punishment” or enforcement. Just a situation that needs to be controlled for the child’s protection.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
The only other thing I’d like to say regarding your examples is, parents should make it clear WHY it’s happening to the child, particularly in the moment. If you yank an arm to get the kid out of the crosswalk, and it’s harder than necessary, make sure they understand why. Otherwise, it’s just going to be a physical issue without any growth to accompany it.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Well I think any type of discipline should have an explanation behind it from the parents. Otherwise there’s no point in the punishment. I tell my son “go to timeout and think about what you’ve done”. That’s not something I say because it sounds catchy. I send him to timeout for one minute per years of age he is (I read that… somewhere). When he’s done I fully expect him to tell me what he did wrong. I then talk to him about it until he grasps why it is wrong, and at a young enough age you can tell the exact moment the light bulb goes on. Sometimes he doesn’t have anything to say, so he goes back to the corner to think some more.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
I remmeber the "think about what you've done" line
I always thought “next time, I won’t get caught.”
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I’m afraid I don’t see how it is in any way a counterpoint to my comment. HTS correctly made a distinction between expressing oneself physically and violently – but I’ve reread his comment a few times, and I can’t find where he tries to, let alone succeeds at, arguing that that distinction is applicable to my comment above.
If a parent uses physical force, with the direct (and successful) intent of causing pain to the child, that parent is using violence. Whether that use of violence is justified is debatable, but even if it is, it does not change the fact that it is violence. You seem to think that it isn’t, and that HTS thinks the same, but neither one of you has explained why.
Furthermore, I believe that by defining corporal punishment as a “expressing oneself physically”, you’re undermining your and HTS’s previous arguments in favor of corporal punishment**. The argument in favor of corporal punishment has to rely on the assumption that it is NOT a physical expression of anger, or frustration, or any other negative feeling, but rather a calculated, thought-out move that’s entirely meant to help the kid. Otherwise it is no different from one child biting another child, or from one man punching another man – it’s simply an infliction of pain as a way of expressing anger, and the recipient just happens to be your child. And that can not be acceptable.
I also think that you don’t do my comment justice by with that quote, because it makes it look like I said that all physical punishments are the same. If you add just a few words, you get:
if you truly think that the line between "physical negative reinforcement" and "abuse" is very thin, and if you think that child abuse is a horrible thing, which you obviously do, then the only logical conclusion I can see is to avoid – and ban – physical punishment altogether.
The comment is completely based on the assumption that are different levels of physical punishment. I just said that if the line between them (as HTS put it) is so thin, which I believe it is, one should neither approach that line, nor trust others to do so.
**Though, if I understand him correctly, HTS is actually arguing in favor of the justifiability of corporal punishment, and not necessarily in favor of the punishment itself.
I was promised lasagna.
I think we’re all using different definitions in general here. I assumed that when we were talking about the acceptable spectrum of something like spanking, we were not talking about something explicitly painful. When I talk about the thin line across which an action is violent and unacceptable, I’m talking about pain. Hurting a child is not okay.
You don’t have to inflict pain for spanking to be effective. I’m not talking about straddling a child over your knee, exposing the buttocks, grabbing a paddle with holes in it and swinging away – no matter how “controlled” your emotions are in that moment.
At its most ideal, I’m talking about E’s bear hug when I’m talking about physical expression. At its most relevant to this conversation, I’m talking about the spankings tyrannoman talks about, where he was not hurt but felt appropriately disciplined.
If a parent uses physical force, with the direct (and successful) intent of causing pain to the child…
This is where I think we’re maybe not on the same page. Physical force can be used, but the intent should have nothing to do with causing pain. I guess it’s still a hard line to draw, and I’m having a lot of trouble creating the words that would draw it clearly. The intent is always for the child to understand consequence by way of empathy. Anecdotally, I was spanked once in my youth. It didn’t even sting my skin when it happened – at least, not in an appreciable way – but the episode made me feel terrible. And to be clear, it wasn’t a vanilla episode. I wasn’t being patted with a feather. It was a legitimate physical episode. I was just wasn’t made to suffer physically for it. I understood that what I had done had caused enough emotional pain to bring on a display that I rarely, if ever, even saw performed. It was my empathy for having caused pain that taught me the lesson.
I would argue, in fact, that if I had been hurt while being spanked, I wouldn’t have been able to make that connection. I would have probably been too bitter about the pain to care that I had caused any to begin with.
Like I’ve been saying from the start: you’re not causing physical pain to the child. You’re acting physically, but you’re not making them suffer physically. That’s as far as the line goes. And that’s what makes the line so very thin and so troubling to begin with.
And to be clear in another sense, none of my comments are specifically designed as counterarguments to your stated opinions. I’m not trying to convince you or change your mind of anything. I’m just trying to make my thoughts explicit where I see them being misunderstood or misinterpreted. I mean to make no commentary on your view. I think that your stance is a very good one to have, even if the stance that I currently own* have isn’t in line with it point by specific point.
It doesn’t bother me if we disagree. I just want to make sense. I also enjoy actually going through the process of writing it out because putting these feelings in explicit terms does help to make them more concrete in my own understanding.
* my own stances are subject to change over time.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Like I’ve been saying from the start: you’re not causing physical pain to the child. You’re acting physically, but you’re not making them suffer physically. That’s as far as the line goes. And that’s what makes the line so very thin and so troubling to begin with.
And this, I think, is also relevant to a point I made above with regard to verbal or emotional abuse. When speaking to your child, the intent should similarly never be to cause emotional pain or distress. If the child understands the issue, they will feel bad about having done it but never bad about having been disciplined for it. When any kind of discipline becomes the cause of pain, it’s become nonfunctional as a form of discipline.
And I think it’s important to make the connection between physical violence and emotional violence here. Like I said earlier, if we were talking about parents yelling at their children, I don’t know that the discussion would be as careful, detailed or nuanced as it has been. And while physical pain is a more immediate and horrifying problem, emotional abuse works within a very similar framework.
In what’s probably a vastly oversimplified way of saying all of this: Approach physical discipline the same way you approach verbal discipline, and vice versa. Are you causing pain? Then there is a better way. That better way may still involve being physical or being verbal, but it does not actually inflict suffering on its own.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
And to be clear in another sense, none of my comments are specifically designed as counterarguments to your stated opinions. I’m not trying to convince you or change your mind of anything. I’m just trying to make my thoughts explicit where I see them being misunderstood or misinterpreted.
I’m aware of this. My point about the counterargument had to do with something you said, but only because of what dregarx said about it.
Like I’ve been saying from the start: you’re not causing physical pain to the child. You’re acting physically, but you’re not making them suffer physically. That’s as far as the line goes.
If you have been saying this from the start, then I’ve completely missed it. You talked of a line, but didn’t, as far as I can tell, say or imply that pain is on the wrong side of it. Maybe you thought that I’ll assume that to be the case, but I don’t feel comfortable assuming anything.
I was promised lasagna.
No, you’re right. Looking back I wasn’t expressing that particular thought from the start. Although it would have been a particularly good place for me to have started.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
Like an essay, I was referencing a well-thought out quote as part of a personal counterpoint.
Additionally, the proclivity to turn towards an absolute ban on any activity with which one disagrees is often an overreaction and sometimes a critical error. A ban that does not result from general uniformity of opinion on the benefits and exigencies of the activity in question is ill-advised on a theoretical level and unenforceable on a practical level, so to move so quickly to the support of one is imprudent.
^ This is my beef. I’m no expert in child-rearing.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
You’re talking about actual law making and enforcement, but I didn’t discuss either one. I said I think all physical punishments should be banned, but I didn’t talk about making any laws right now – obviously if the majority of the people don’t support a ban, there shouldn’t be a ban (since it can’t be derived from the bill of rights).
I was promised lasagna.
You used the word ban…
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
I was unclear; I didn’t discuss actual law making either. To turn to majority rule and the bill of rights and say “obviously there shouldn’t be a ban” is neither of these are true is independent of the original point, which is that you support a ban.
And as I said, to turn so quickly to support of a ban when there is so little uniformity of opinion on the professional and general level on this subject, and indeed possibly a majority of opinion on that level against said ban, is imprudent.
It’s an attitude that derives from a preference towards bringing outside forces to interfere in a relationship simply because one disagrees with some actions, even if they may be moral or ultimately beneficial. That is not a useful or productive tendency.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
I don’t understand your first paragraph.
To your second point – as far as I can tell, most, if not all major relevant organizations condemn all forms of corporal punishment. At least the ones that stated their opinion. This includes UNESCO, as well as the (American) National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (and its Canadian and British equivalents). I haven’t studied this, so it’s definitely possible that I’ve missed something, but I’ve never seen a major, relevant organization condone corporal punishment. I’m sure some studies have concluded that it doesn’t hurt, or that it’s even beneficial, but on a wide, organizational level, there seems to be a majority (and arguably a consensus) against it.
To your third point:
It’s an attitude that derives from a preference towards bringing outside forces to interfere in a relationship simply because one disagrees with some actions, even if they may be moral or ultimately beneficial.
This seems to be based on the assumption that I find corporal punishment moral, which I don’t. I thought I’ve established that earlier, but I guess I wasn’t clear enough.
I also think one could make arguments (whether successful or not) for a ban based on constitutional rights, specifically the right to dignity and the right to security of person/protection of body/whatever you want to call it. Neither right is protected by the Bill of Rights, so that’s not relevant in the US – which is what I was referencing earlier. And there is no general majority for a ban, and as long as there isn’t, there shouldn’t be ban. But if there will be, it would not be despite people finding corporal punishment moral, but because they find it immoral. That is a huge difference.
I was promised lasagna.
moral or ultimately beneficial
Convenient for you to glom onto the word moral and ignore the latter part to avoid addressing it.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
The first part of my comment is entirely about the fact virtually every major relevant organization says it’s not beneficial. You’ve ignored this claim twice, both in this reply and in your reply to JRP below.
So I ignored the the specific word “beneficial” in your quote because I’d already made my arguments regarding it in the same reply. No point in repeating the same argument twice in one comment.
I was promised lasagna.
As I said, I’m not looking at law, constitutionality, etc. here.
The question is: is it ultimately beneficial? And in many cases it is…. However, you disagree with the method of parenting, so your response is “ban it!”
Great. You have endorsed bringing an outside force into play in a relationship that was doing quite well by itself, because it makes you feel bad.
This is my point.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Correcting some bad writing of mine:
You have endorsed bringing an outside force into play in a relationship that was doing quite well by itself, becauseit makes you feel badyou feel bad about the path taken to achieve a laudable goal.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Really?
as far as I can tell, most, if not all major relevant organizations condemn all forms of corporal punishment. At least the ones that stated their opinion. This includes UNESCO, as well as the (American) National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (and its Canadian and British equivalents).
Don’t be so reductive that you turn it into, “you feel bad about it, so you think it should be banned.” It’s a pretty common belief among child psychologists and pediatricians that corporal punishment isn’t really an effective means of correcting behavior. It’s not like this is simply a decree by Cookyman because he “feels bad.”
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Yeah…This comment, combined with your pointless one-liner reply to JRP below make it look like you’re completely uninterested in reading or addressing any of my actual points.
I was promised lasagna.
I wished to get my point across.
I respect your opinion.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
You have your point, and I have my point. And I think I made it somewhat clear that I was intending to stick to my subject of preference, and not go beyond the bounds into anything I wasn’t very knowledgeable about.
Specifically, I wanted to express objection to an overly pronounced tendency towards the banning of activities.
I strayed away from the debate about pro-corporal punishment and anti-corporal punishment because I am working that out in my mind myself.
Again, I respect your opinion, but have no interest in debating you on the benefits and exigencies of corporal punishment in the home itself. As I have tried to make clear, but perhaps have not, I am expressing my discontent over what I perceive to be a hasty adoption of a criminalization of an activity whose merits are heavily debatable.
So you can see why you may have the perception that I am completely uninterested in reading or addressing any of my actual points, but if I may posit the idea myself that either I have been particularly ineffective in relating my own concerns or that you are similarly unconcerned about the ideas I have expressed.
I could tell that JRP was not getting the jist of my point, perhaps as a result of having read only the comment that he replied to, and additionally I had other work at the time, so a comprehensive response to him, which would have been a third attempt at explaining my position, which as of yet has not been acknowledged but rather ignored, I succumbed to weariness and didn’t provide an explanation, but rather a confirmation of my own convictions which he had questioned in his comment title.
Again, my position on the issue itself is still in a formative stage, and I am looking at all of the points here, including yours, to consider if I prefer one or another. And this is exactly why I am not responding to your points because to do so would adopt one position or another, and I don’t know myself which is preferable…
Hopefully this post helps you understand better where I am coming from, but if not, please tell me where I was unclear so I can explain myself better…. Language can be difficult sometimes, n’est-ce pas?
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
You’ve already explained why you think I’m supporting “a hasty adoption of a criminalization of an activity whose merits are heavily debatable” (or that I have “a preference towards bringing outside forces to interfere in a relationship simply because one disagrees with some actions, even if they may be moral or ultimately beneficial”) here. You based it on three claims:
1)
There is so little uniformity of opinion on the professional and general level on this subject, and indeed possibly a majority of opinion on that level against said ban.
2) Corporal punishment is, or may be beneficial.
3) Corporal punishment is, or may be moral.
I’ve addressed all three points in my reply to you:
1) I explained why there does seems not only to be a general uniformity of opinion on the professional level, but arguably a consensus supporting a ban. You’ve ignored this claim.
2) I’ve explained why I don’t think it’s beneficial – in part basing it on (1). You’ve ignored this claim too.
3) I’ve explained why I don’t find it moral. This is one is the hardest to debate, so I can’t blame you for ignoring it.
But then you wrote your reply:
The question is: is it ultimately beneficial? And in many cases it is…. However, you disagree with the method of parenting, so your response is "ban it!"
Great. You have endorsed bringing an outside force into play in a relationship that was doing quite well by itself, because it makes you feel bad.
Which still baffles me. It looks like you were trying to reply to someone else. Unless you made absolutely no effort to understand my comment, I just can’t see how this is what you derived from it.
Your claim that I want to ban corporal punishment just “because it makes me feel bad” is not only condescending, but also very clearly and obviously false. JRP pointed that out to you, but for some reason you think that’s the result of him not getting “the jist of your point” – except he didn’t criticize or even mention your point, but rather the disingenuous (or simply misguided, depending on whether or not you payed attention to what I wrote) way in which you portrayed mine.
It’s not that you didn’t offer any counterargument regarding corporal punishment itself – If you don’t have any, because you’ve yet to form an opinion on the subject, that’s fine. It’s better than fine. But you did make arguments about the banning of corporal punishment (and you rightly say that supporting a ban is not the same as opposing the act), and I addressed these arguments, more than once. I explained why I do think the state has the right to interfere here, and you’re pretending that I didn’t.
I was promised lasagna.
1) Question was: is it being debated? Well, just here on this forum, we had a couple of voices on either side, E, RD, HTS, JRP and yourself were the most notable, I believe. Wiki “corporal punishment in the home” and you’ll find the phrase:
In many cultures, parents have historically been regarded as having the duty of disciplining their children, and the right to spank them when appropriate….In North America, Britain and much of the rest of the English-speaking world, the practice is highly controversial.
demonstrating that it is not a settled issue.
If you want to claim “professional uniformity” go ahead, I won’t argue.
On a general level, surveys of parents swing the support to the other side, so one could say there is a low level of “uniformity of opinion” upon the combination of the two levels.
2) and 3) : see the very end, where I respond to your last sentence.
On the baffling reply of mine…
Here’s what happened. I twice tried to make clear what I was concerned about (tendency to ban) and what I was not debating (corporal punishment itself), and failed both times, obviously, because your subsequent replies continued to debate the issue of the net benefits and morality of corporal punishment.
At this point, frustration got the better of me and in my third reply, not only did I use elementary-school language in the reply (this is the “baffling” one) but also included the deprecatory “because you feel bad” line. That’s all on me. Even worse, I failed yet again to help you understand what I was trying to say. Shoot.
I explained why I do think the state has the right to interfere here, and you’re pretending that I didn’t.
Sigh… Are you listening to me at all, or are am saying it particularly badly? As I (believe I) said, I have no wish to dispute your reasons for state interference, so rather than arguing over your valid points, I wish to give them credence(in other words, I do not disagree with the evidence, but rather the position you are basing off of that evidence). I do not wish to pretend that they don’t exist, but as the nature of argument means that those points on which the disputees agree are soon relinquished to adopt topics on which there is a disagreement, I can see why you have gotten the impression that I am “ignoring” your point, even though I am simply not arguing with it.
For the last time (I hope), I would like to reiterate the sentiment that bans should not be turned to as quickly as you are doing in this case, and that this sentiment is essentially independent of the arguments for or against the activity itself.
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga... CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz... CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Question was: is it being debated?
No it wasn’t. The question was: is there little uniformity of opinion on the professional and general level on this subject?
On the professional level, you’ve conceded that there’s uniformity of opinion supporting a ban. On the general level, of course there isn’t – if there were there would already be a ban, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. So that’s not an argument. Or, rather, if it is an argument, then it’s an argument against any new law advocated by anyone; or against anyone who argues against the majority opinion.
Here’s what happened. I twice tried to make clear what I was concerned about (tendency to ban) and what I was not debating (corporal punishment itself), and failed both times, obviously, because your subsequent replies continued to debate the issue of the net benefits and morality of corporal punishment.
Really? Here’s what you wrote before:
It’s an attitude that derives from a preference towards bringing outside forces to interfere in a relationship simply because one disagrees with some actions, even if they may be moral or ultimately beneficial
Then, one comment later:
moral or ultimately beneficialConvenient for you to glom onto the word moral and ignore the latter part to avoid addressing it.
And finally:
The question is: is it ultimately beneficial? And in many cases it is…. However, you disagree with the method of parenting, so your response is "ban it!"
[Emphasis mine in all cases]
How can I not debate the issue of the net benefits and morality of corporal punishment, when you keep on bringing it up? In fact, in the second quote, you’re clearly accusing me of intentionally ignoring the supposed beneficialness of corporal punishment! You’re saying I’m trying to avoid addressing it.
So in this one thread you’ve managed to:
- Continuously bring up the morality and beneficialness of corporal punishment.
- Accuse me of being too focused on the morality and beneficialness of corporal punishment, and say that it’s proof that I don’t understand your point.
- Accuse me of ignoring the beneficialness of corporal punishment.
I just have no idea what I’m supposed to do with all these self-contradictions. You can continue to tell everyone they don’t understand your comments, but you clearly have either forgotten your earlier comments in the thread, or are hoping that I have.
I explained why I do think the state has the right to interfere here, and you’re pretending that I didn’t.Sigh… Are you listening to me at all, or are am saying it particularly badly? As I (believe I) said, I have no wish to dispute your reasons for state interference
Stop right there. The quote doesn’t deal with the reasons for interference, but rather with the right to interference. There’s a difference. It wasn’t about corporal punishment, but about the interference itself, which is what you’re arguing against.
I was promised lasagna.
Here’s what happened. I twice tried to make clear what I was concerned about (tendency to ban) and what I was not debating (corporal punishment itself), and failed both times, obviously, because your subsequent replies continued to debate the issue of the net benefits and morality of corporal punishment.Really? Here’s what you wrote before:
It’s an attitude that derives from a preference towards bringing outside forces to interfere in a relationship simply because one disagrees with some actions, even if they may be moral or ultimately beneficialThen, one comment later:
moral or ultimately beneficialConvenient for you to glom onto the word moral and ignore the latter part to avoid addressing it.
And finally:
The question is: is it ultimately beneficial? And in many cases it is…. However, you disagree with the method of parenting, so your response is “ban it!”
[Emphasis mine in all cases]
How can I not debate the issue of the net benefits and morality of corporal punishment, when you keep on bringing it up?
Simple response to the question. You can’t. This was my fault. Owing to the formative nature of my opinions here, they have in fact been changing, and that, in combination with a failure to express myself clearly, lead to all sorts of contradictions in my post sequence. I noted this previously in many places…
(tentative acknowledgement)
As I have tried to make clear, but perhaps have not
frustration got the better of me… I failed yet again to help you understand what I was trying to say.(stronger)
Sigh… Are you listening to me at all, or are am saying it particularly badly?
(Can be taken both ways, but I would like to acknowledge that the latter option is factual, not the former)
My current standing is best represented in my 2-3 most recent posts, the others you have quoted representing either prior opinions or badly stated opinions that did not adequately express my true concerns (ex: using the words moral and beneficial in a post when I was not trying to argue about morality and benefits; I should not have used those words, and it has caused you confusion and expended your and my time).
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga... CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz... CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
I hope you can understand where the parts of this come from, because my formatting is all messed up.
My own writing starts with:
“Simple response to the question. You can’t. This was my fault.”
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga... CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz... CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Stop right there. The quote doesn’t deal with the reasons for interference, but rather with the right to interference. There’s a difference. It wasn’t about corporal punishment, but about the interference itself, which is what you’re arguing against.
The problem is that to say why you think the state has the right to interfere, you need to talk about corporal punishment itself, which I can’t argue about because I don’t have an opinion.
Secondarily, I am not arguing against “the interference itself”, but rather expressing my discontent at the tendency to turn to it.
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga... CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz... CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
If it helps clarify my position further, your points and those of JRP may very well lead me to avoid spanking and like practices with my children. And in fact where I stand now it is very likely that I will go in that direction, thanks to this guidance. It is good advice, and well expressed.
However, I will not turn my efforts to try to prevent all other people from following that path.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
I don’t think I can read through this post without feeling badly, so let me skip to the end by saying… Don’t take my “rubbing a kid’s nose in shit” comment as anything more than vaguely light comedy. I got what you were saying, it certainly didn’t seem offensive.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I think after the conversation turned serious above, I got myself into a very specific mode. That, and I probably should have just been in bed by then.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
Bhaakon. But he only does it to lure me close enough so he can beat me.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 4, 2010 11:37 PM PST up reply actions
the saddest part of the story is that Bhaakon only had turkey jerky, so howie was beaten and played for a fool.
Like a harp.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 8:49 AM PST up reply actions
Point of Clarification
Dregarx is correct, that was strictly for entertainment purposes. I would never put a 4 year old in a car trunk. Especially in this day and age with all the damn cable shows showing serial killers stuffing their victims in trunks. You could traumatize a kid for life if he thinks you’re serious like that. I could just see it now:
Teacher: “So how was your weekend E-Ticket Jr.?”
E-Ticket Jr.: “My dad got mad at me in a restaurant so he locked me in the trunk of a car while he went back to finish his pizza and watch the rest of the game” I was really scared because I kept thinking I was going to be buried in the woods like that little girl on TV was."
I’ve sent more than one errant kid to cool his heels in the car though (closely atttended to though)
Both my children (boy and girl) are in their early thirties now, and I never found it neccesary to spank, much less hit them. I would periodically get up in their face if they were really being obnoxious, but in spite of their rambunctiousness, I found that it was more effective to withdraw affection and hit them with some really nasty stank eye. In later years this would evolve into stare-downs that could last for minutes and almost always ending in hysterical fits of laughter from all of us.
The older they got, the less physical the direction. I never used pain as a motivator. I was pretty successful in using my extreme size and experience advantage to steer them in the right direction without ever having to resort to violence. The sheer size of being an adult and expressing displeasure verbally is really all that is needed.
Little kids can get extremely frustrated and physical. When mine did, a firm bear hug (from behind to avoid scratching, bites and spitting) to restrain them until the calamity passed, usually a matter of less than a minute, would suffice. It was a way to reinforce love too. They got hugs when they did well and they got super-hugged in place when they acted out. Never struck. Never inflicted pain. Totally unneccessary. And they knew when I was mad. Kids can and will go out of their way to aggravate a parent, sibling or another adult or kid. Banishment to a room, the corner, the car works pretty good. Separation from the rest of the tribe works.
Little life experience here.
Years ago, when the oldest was about 2 1/2, he decided to give one of the kittys a bath. Fully submerged. Well his mother comes around the corner with his infant sister in her arms after giving her a bath, freaks out, grabs the kitten out of his hands, (kitty was okay) and swats the living shit out of his behind for almost drowning the cat. Of course he’s totally confused, being two and half years old, and doubly hurt by the spanking he got. And on top of it, he’s pretty convinced that his mother hates him.
Later, I simply filled the bathtub up with water and had him lean over and put his face in the water and to hold his breath until he couldn’t anymore. So it was a game to see how long he could hold his breath. Then I asked him how it would feel if I wouldn’t let him up after he couldn’t hold his breath anymore, and the lights went on. He still remembers that incident to this day. Andy you never saw a kid more gentle with animals his entire life.
Most of the time if we just make a little effort and problem solving logic, raising kids just doesn’t have to be a tale of woe, or great drama for most of us.
My enduring admiration and respect for moms and dads who have children with special needs. Whether it be autism, down’s syndrome, and the countless other afflictions that attack the most defenseless amongst us.
And perhaps unmentioned is the good person who has been given a child that causes nothing but chaos, and who is in trouble constantly; a child tormented by all manner of character defect from the earliest age. The heartbreak of such a parent is unimaginable. Exceeded only by the crushing life-ruining experience of burying one’s own child. It was those parents that I always thought about, when my two would get under my skin, and then realize how fortunate and lucky I really was.
by E Ticket on Mar 5, 2010 8:42 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
I don’t usually make a show of congratulating you, but I think that’s very likely a thread-ender. Salient. Sensible. Heartfelt. I know that there is a lot more that could be said about all of this, but after this comment I think the largest, most useful point has been made. I stand by what I’ve been saying about the value of physical expression (not physical violence) in raising a child, not least of all because you have to be able to show a child that it is actually okay to be physically expressive not only about positive feelings but also negative ones, but also so that you can actually show them the appropriate ways to express themselves with their bodies. Your anecdote about the cat is wonderful, because it shows the value of complete expression. Without all three of the physical, intellectual and finally emotional experiences, the lesson about the cat was not learned. And with all three, it was particularly poignant.
So I think you’ve made a great comment here. Your point about life experience also touches me. For all of my grandstanding, I – and those paying attention to me – have to recognize that I’m only 24. And as I get older and do eventually have children I look forward to gaining a more well-rounded and well-applied point of view for all of this by way of experience, instruction (from those in my own life with the gentle wisdom that you seem to have) and perspective.
Very moving, E.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 5, 2010 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
Well thanks Howie
This old Giant really knows how to be a dad!
by E Ticket on Mar 5, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
Well said.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Teacher: "So how was your weekend E-Ticket Jr.?"
E-Ticket Jr.: "My dad got mad at me in a restaurant so he locked me in the trunk of a car….
And many times this information comes to us totally unsolicited:
Excited 4 year old running into the classroom one morning.
“Teacher!! Teacher!!! Guess what?!?!?!?”
“What?”
“Daddy slept on the couch last night!!!”
“Really…”
Vaguely back on point here…
why are there not airlines that cater to either of these two groups? Wouldn’t their be some passengers willing to pay a bit more or fly at a slightly less convenient time to be assured the flight would be kid free, or alternatively that the flight will be family friendly and their kids could be less “restrained” (within reason of course)?
I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d assume that since many airlines have gone out of business or declared bankruptcy, and since many more cut flights and work hard to fill flights, I’d think that most airlines don’t have the ability to be selective on the types of passenger flights they have.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
the humiliation of being judged by their fellow travelers
Maybe they don’t care about what judgmental strangers think.
Is it bad form to have my first comment in so long be so snarky? I don’t have kids and this kind of thing drives me up the wall. It’s a public space and people are allowed to bring their children.
Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)
You're right.
It’s public space, so why can’t I bring my very large and flatulent dog in the cabin?
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I wish you could
All dogs rock very much.
Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)
by tk on Mar 6, 2010 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
My father's and my parenting styles vary only slightly.
I lost a tooth when I was six for spilling a can of paint in the basement.
I thought it a bit extreme.
He had no qualms about verbally and physically expressing his anger. It was a fine love/fear relationship we had, and when it was my turn at the helm I decided not to go that route. I figured explaining the consequences of your actions verbally, flavored with obvious displeasure and complemented with judicial sanctioning of prized possessions or events ought to do the trick.
So, how’d that hands – off approach pan out? Well, I personally never told my father in any place either private or public that “I don’t care what you think!” Or try in an amazingly bad series of contradicting lies to explain why you’re not turning in your homework.
Hell no, he would have backhanded me for thinking that was even worth trying on him.
I do suspect that non physical parenting is more effective when the parents actually live under the same roof as the child…“In your face” need not be accompanied by contact to make an impression. But when they don’t they eventually figure out just how long the leash on that snapping dog is, and that’s when you find out how effective – or not – all your lecturing was.
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Mar 9, 2010 5:10 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
