Parenting for Neo

[Guest neo]

Good point, DEFCON. It's desirable to intervene on behalf of your children if they're faced with something that they can't reasonably be expected to deal with. But for those matters that they have the skills to deal with, or need to develop, backing off lets the child develop the ability to do so. As a general relationship principle, don't make a habit of doing things for people, children or adults, that they're capable (or should be capable) of doing for themselves.

I don't think there's an atom of error in your belief that children need to develop a sense of self. In fact, I think that's a large part of what childhood and adolescence are all about. And supporting and facilitating a child's discovery of himself, and nurturing that self-awareness into a healthy integration with the other people around her, is a large part of what being a parent is about.

Thanks kindly for your views on the subject.

Best,

neo

[DEFCON]

Wolfhunter

No one's framed the issue in a more articulate manner than yourself!

[DEFCON]

Neo

Thanks for a great debate!

Defcon

[IFG]

Hi, Defcon - re:"No one's framed the issue in a more articulate manner than [Wolfhunter]!" - I was initially inclined to disagree. Altho' outnumbered in this discussion (even with some able support from Don Hudson), neo has been very articulate, patient, forceful etc etc. But then it occurs to me that one must listen for what is meant rather than what is said; and you're right, Wolfhunter indeed frames his agreement with your outlook in an articulate manner.

Vis-a-vis your inquiry of neo about strategies to deal with noses being punched - What if your kid is the one doing the punching? Is there an appropriate application for corporeal punishment? (For Wolfhunter's benefit, we'll assume an age below 8.)

Just interested in your opinion.

Cheers, IFG

[DEFCON]

"Vis-a-vis your inquiry of neo about strategies to deal with noses being punched - What if your kid is the one doing the punching? Is there an appropriate application for corporeal punishment? (For Wolfhunter's benefit, we'll assume an age below 8.)"

You raise an interesting question. Two or more situations may exist. One scenario features the kid that is a "bully" and the other a kid that took the initiative to ward off a verbal or physical attack.

In the first instance I believe a bully often has no appreciation for the pain he causes, mental or physical. This individual needs a wakeup call and IMO that's a lesson best taught by his peers. On the other hand that child may be releasing personal frustrations related to a lousy home environment. In this case I believe that some form of realistic professional intervention would best serve the public good.

In the second example I'd certainly counsel the child including such things as the dangers associated with escalation, retaliation and the potential for permanent physical harm to both combatants. At the same time I think I'd be pretty pleased that my kid was able to stand up for himself.

The world is a violent place and the potential for violence is a necessary characteristic of the human animal. Personal discipline including the "when is the use of force necessary" is something that children need to be taught. Leaving them to develop on their own (tv nanny & other modern parental techniques) will not foster a positive attitude nor lead to a positive outcome. A responsible karate club will place the "personal discipline" issue above all others when teaching a child the art.

Short and not a complete answer.

Defcon

[IFG]

Hi again, Defcon. "Short and not complete" will be the order of the day on any topic like this . Herewith a couple more incomplete points of my own.

My experience has been that these situations are often characterized, not by just one or the other, but according to both of your suggestions, depending on the eye of the beholder. Frequently, kids that punch other kids are bullies to all but their own parents, who do see them as taking "the initiative to ward off a verbal or physical attack" or some such similar enabling rationalization.

Re: "...pleased that my kid was able to stand up for himself". Indeed it can occassionally be heartwarming to see a timid child find the confidence to assert themselves, but really, don't we all know that most schoolyard beatings, for whatever cause, are initiated by kids who know they're going to win. Why are more parents' hearts not beating a little faster in pride when their kid is able to negotiate life's little tribulations without resorting to violence?

Another comment regards the notion that violence against children is acceptable only when it's pre-meditated, or measured, or part of a tool box. I'd actually say that I'm less bothered by spontaneous little swats (within the obvious limits of course). Part of learning about others around us is that their patience is not limitless, and their reactions not always predictable, perhaps similar to your reference about discipline by ones peers. Adults occasionally grow frustrated too, and all in all I think that kids are quite resilient to the trauma of the occasional exasperated backside 'pat'.

I'm more concerned about justifying the use of violence, as a declared and acceptable means either of modifying behaviour in the longer term, or resolving a conflict, and think that neo and Don have hit the nail perfectly - the real lesson becomes that pain is to be avoided, the strong make the rules, and conformity is painless. And the fact that many children learn that lesson well may not be entirely a good thing as they grow stronger (or more timid for that matter).

Finally, this has been a very parent-centric thread. While undoubtedly the most important single influences on the upbringing of a child, they are not the only one, perhaps not even the determining one. I don't regard myself as some sort of sculptor when it comes to raising my kids, I just try to ensure that my considerable influence on the process is a positive one. Before they're on their own they will have had the influence of siblings, peers, teachers, mentors of various kinds, extended family etc. etc. As such, we shouldn't get caught up in escalating rhetoric about whether spanking will ruin or save the next generation. A good heart and an honest impulse to do the best by our kids will suffice, like they always have, and tactical questions about spanking can be discussed, maybe even resolved, as a refinement on that.

Cheers, IFG

PS: On a somewhat different tack - If one must enroll kids in "martial arts", to prepare them for that violent, cruel world out there, may I recommend boxing. Since it's the only one in which punches are not pulled, one learns about the consequence of an opponent hitting you, hard.

[Wolfhunter]

I perceive that you have entered the fray with the notion that premeditated use of spanking is “violence against children” and have characterized the actions of those who have momentarily lost control of themselves as ” spontaneous little swats”. The inference being that those in the latter group are not guilty of said violence because of their philosophical opposition to it. I find that framing your argument (or any portion thereof) in this manner is not unlike the Coalition for Gun Control asserting that all reasonable opposition to the “long gun registry” is the equivalent of violence against women.

My early exit from “retirement” was not an attempt to further the spanking debate, only to raise the point that being swatted by a parent who the child knows full well is fundamentally opposed to the concept of spanking does, in my view, clearly send mixed and confusing signals. Having said that, I completely agree with the last paragraph of your post and happily return to retirement.

[IFG]

Hello, Wolfhunter. Your perception of my notions about spanking is somewhat clouded, perhaps by my choice of words. Both ” spontaneous little swats”, and the premeditated, measured variety retrieved from toolboxes, ultimately amount to hitting kids, but "violence against children" is probably too charged a phrase.

In a perfect world we wouldn't be hitting each other at all. We're not perfect, however I did say I was "less bothered" by the former. That falls well short of exoneration of the hitting, for philosophical reasons or any other. But then words like "guilt" in a context like this discussion needlessly raise the temperature as well.

I agree with neo that hitting kids is never really required, but parenthood does not confer perfection. I guess I see some mitigation if after one has a lapse in patience , or perhaps runs out of ideas in a situation of immediate safety concern, one faces it rather than rationalizing that lapse after the fact. IMHO, to use your own words, all spanking tends to "clearly send mixed and confusing signals"; to dignify it with justification and premeditation just exacerbates that.

I'm afraid I don't follow your reference to long guns and the battery of women, either in relation to each other, or to anything I've said.

But I'll disturb your retirement no more , a regrettable withdrawal - I did agree with Defcon's assessment of the quality in your other articulations, just not that it was exclusive to your side of the discussion.

Cheers, IFG

[DEFCON]

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I liked your comment on boxing but, I believe Karate (light contact sparring) training produces enough mistakes so as to demonstrate the "pain" point.

[Guest neo]

Roger that. Our 15 year-old does Tae Kwan Do, and there's all sorts of rules for where you're not allowed to kick or punch. But in the heat of sparring, or a tournament especially, all sorts of things happen. You can't do the sport and avoid contact pain any more than you could in rugby or football.