Originally posted by darvlay
Even if that were true, how would you recommend a parent deal with that child if it no longer responds to "loving discipline"? Medication?
I know of one couple who could ask their tenant to beat their kid for them. It would keep their consciences clear, and he'd never behave like a [WORD TOO LONG] or anything else aga...
Hang on, this is a public forum.
I'm not presenting an alternative, or a logical thesis really. I'm objecting to the establishment of any kind of carrot/stick environment, except where it's a practical necessity. I don't think the idea of a 'time-out' or any of its equivalents is much better than violence, in principle; nor do I condone the giving of rewards for good behaviour. Small children are about as prone to sensible persuasion as adults are, if it's expressed properly, and this should be taken advantage of.
I can't remember ever being explicitly rewarded or punished for anything I ever did to cause my parents grief. I was yelled at a fair amount, but that's a case of bad-tempered people (both of my parents are quite high-strung) making a commendable attempt at communicating with someone difficult to communicate with (a small child) rather than premeditated Pavlovian rubbish.
That's not to say that parents, to a certain point, should be faulted for emotional reactions to their children doing stupid, dangerous things, and one can't be too upset with someone, say, impulsively smacking their kid when it runs into oncoming traffic or something. However, I don't think it's in a child's interest to have a consistent set of punishments/rewards or even clearly defined rules for behaviour, because to an overwhelming extent society does not have those things, and I don't think it does society any good to be peopled by rule-conscious, punishment-fearing, reward-seeking mice when it should be peopled by men.
If the child is being wild-ass, and it's a one-off, then simply deal with it, I'd say. He or she is probably learning something, and tolerating the resulting annoyance is what you agreed to by failing to wear a condom.
I think a necessary condition for a child to have an actual wild-ass disposition, barring mental illness or similar circumstances, is that the parents, for whatever reason, cannot interact with the child in a meaningful way. These reasons may be legitimate; particularly the stress imposed by having to support the child's material needs. They may also be bad reasons. For example, as far as I can tell, the parents of the kid I'd like to hit with a cricket bat expect too much from their personal lives to have a three-year-old child (these people are psychos -- when he misbehaves, they lock him in his room for 5 seconds for each month in his age; this isn't 'abusive', but I think it's stupid and counterproductive).
(If you get anything at all out of that, it's my current answer to the 'What are you listening to?' thread. Hint: I'm not normally sexist in my writing.)
EDIT I'd probably be a terrible parent and never, ever want to have children.
EDIT the SECOND I'm also 18, and therefore almost certainly talking from within my ass in most of this post.
Suicide
16 Mar '06 21:51
Back to Top