Disciplining Children

[Rastafari]

Being raised by the belt as a kid, I think its not an evil thing.
I know some of you will say "how can you teach a child with fear, etc.", but it keeps kids from being spoiledbrats.

[truthaddict11]

beating children is horrendous i suggest you rethink your stance

[Sheep]

Breeds violence. If a kid's an asshole giving him a black eye isn't going to change anything except maybe now he'll think that it's fine to resort to violence. -- Not to mention it makes you look like a coward.

[synthesis]

Rastafari, have you ever heard the name Carl Panzram?

[Borincano]

I think parents should be able to physically discipline their children too. I've seen too many troublemakers take pride in the fact their parents don't hit them; there they can practically get away with anything. However, I don't support parents beating their kids to a pulp with an iron bar to the head. If the child curses, hit him/her in the mouth with the back of your hand. If it steals, smack his/her hand...etc Small little pains that let the child know that that is the price of doing the little crime, as well giving in a little mix of talk with it. I've seen parents just go for the belt the instant their child does wrong and have that child do it again because it doesn't hurt them.

[Al Creed]

Although being raised by some corperal punishment, I would never use it on my own kids.

Kids act the way they do, not because of discipline (or lack thereof), but how they are treated. If kids are spoiled, they turn rotten. If theyre abused, they go crazy. Children should be treated as equals.

[Rastafari]

Carl Panzram
what does a notorious ass-raper have to do with anything?
I'm just saying that I notice that children who are disciplined at all act much better than any kids raised under the "New Age" hand.


Children should be treated as equals.
As much as this pains me, I have to clearly and conclusively say that this is wrong on hundreds of levels.
To begin with, children are the ones undergoing socialization here, no adults. Kids have to learn things just as their parents did.

[dancingoutlaw]

Children should be treated as equals.

You can't treat children as equals because well... they are children. I think that discpline is neccessary. A swat to the bottom will correct a small child while not doing any harm. There is a difference between discipline and abuse.

Peace

[Rastafari]

and another thing that I can't stand; Parents being led around by their children.
You've all seen this bullshit before, the "I'd love to go, but little Timmy here gets mad if I leave him."
or "We just couldn't stand to hear little Timmy crying, so we let him go to be when he wants."

Any parent that is controlled by their child has some serious problems.


but then again, all of these opinions are probably just on account of my development with regards to my region.

[Tiki Man]

Kids should all have equal opportunity, and not be able to sap off of their parent's money.

However, I do sopport physical discipline if the child does something such as touching a hot stove or iron, and walking in front of a car. Kids should learn not to do those things. Although if they do it, it may be too late...

[redstar2000]

Being raised by the belt as a kid, I think it's not an evil thing.

See how far we have to go? This is a moderator at Che-Lives speaking.

Having been raised by a sadistic piece of fascist shit, he clearly intends to do likewise to his own kids.


I think parents should be able to physically discipline their children too.


I think that discpline is neccessary.

At least it's not necessary to move this thread; it's in the exact forum where it belongs.

Sieg Heil, gentlemen. :angry:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:01 AM

Being raised by the belt as a kid, I think it's not an evil thing.

See how far we have to go? This is a moderator at Che-Lives speaking.

Having been raised by a sadistic piece of fascist shit, he clearly intends to do likewise to his own kids.


I think parents should be able to physically discipline their children too.


I think that discpline is neccessary.

At least it's not necessary to move this thread; it's in the exact forum where it belongs.

Sieg Heil, gentlemen. :angry:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
that's right. smacking a kid with an open hand when he talks back to you is something you have to do. it may seem antiquated, but until Dr. Spock tells me better, its sounds like the best choice of action.

explain why I'd do otherwise.


and I'd love to hear from parents on this one as well, if we have anybody posting here >25 with kids.

[Loknar]

http://maddox.xmission.com/beat.html

[Exploited Class]

Being raised by the belt as a kid, I think its not an evil thing.
And you won't, most people don't find fault for how they were raised. Most people that physically harm their children; were physically harmed themselves. Same with pedaphiles, most of them were raped by a family member and they don't see anything wrong doing the same.

I am not taking an extreme here to say that using physical force to punish a child is exactly the same as pedaphilia, rather to show you that a child that is abused has the potential to grow up to be an abuser. Not all kids grow up to be abusers, but most adult abusers where abused growing up. So more than likely you will not find error, especially since parents use a type of accidental brainwashing with children, "You deserve this", "You asked for it", "I did that because I love you", "this hurts me more than you". It places all the blame on the kid and the kid carries that baggage with him or her into their adult life.

You don't spoil a child by sparing the rod. You spoil a child by giving them everything they want, not by withholding physicaly punishment.


To begin with, children are the ones undergoing socialization here, no adults. Kids have to learn things just as their parents did.
I want to know where in society it is okay to use physical force as a means of punishment? If you are late with writing a report for your boss, it is okay for him to hit you? If you cut in front of a line at a movie, it is okay for people to physicaly teach you a lesson?

Using physical force as a punishment scheme in a household in my view, is the last desperate attempt to control a child after a failure to be a good parent. It is a last resort of poor parenting that couldn't raise their kids correctly using proper roll model techniques, proper explination and not just a "I told you so".

The last thing you want to do is humiliate a child, hit a child, teach a kid that physical force solves issues. I have worked with children and I can always tell the kids who get spankings, they are more aggresive, try to solve issues with physical means or they have no self esteem and are very shy.

It isn't easy being a GOOD parent, and in an American society it is almost impossible. it is impossible for 1 parent to stay at home with a kid, long hours at work make it hard to take extra time out to spend with a child. Listening and reading and not losing one's temper, very hard to do. Lack of communication skills and proper skills make it almost impossible to bring up a child properly.

Children are super intelligent, none of us in here will ever learn as much as we did ages 2 to 8. There is no other time in your lifetime that you process so much information. Just like you buy pants a little big for a kid because they will grow into them, the same is how you talk to them, you talk a little above their level and they grow into it. At this age children are mirrors reflecting back what they see and from who they learn from, most common it is a parent. So if children are acting up, out of control, losing tempers, it is usually because they have learned this already from tehir parents and no physical force will fix that.

[SonofRage]

http://maddox.xmission.com/beatkid4.jpg

[Kapitan Andrey]

SonofRage...and you support that shit!? :huh:

DON'T BEAT CHILDREN!!! :angry:

[Jesus Christ]

i was lucky enough to grow up with parents who never beat me
in fact, I have never been punished or grounded!

but I knew and know kids whose parents would beat them with sacks of oranges and shit



not good, not good at all
you should never administer physical discipline to a child

[redstar2000]

Haven't you ever wondered just where fascists come from? Or homophobes? Or misogynists? Or cops? Or mercenaries?

Or just ordinary belligerent assholes?

Sure, there's plenty of crap on the dummyvision and, for those who can manage to learn how to read, the fascist or misogynist propaganda is not that hard to find.

But what makes one person initially receptive to that kind of shit while another will more or less reject it?

Is it "in the genes"? That's the current fashionable "explanation".

Here's my hypothesis: as small children we learn about what we are "worth" from the people around us. We learn if we are valued or not; if we are thought worthwhile or not; if our desires or opinions are important or not; etc.

We learn whether other humans are "friendly" and "can be trusted"...or if they are "dangerous enemies" to be feared and hated.

We learn whether "authority" is rational and fair...or if it is irrational, prone to erupt in random violence, characterized by emotional or physical exploitation.

The adult that uses violence or the threat of violence against a small child is teaching that child a lesson...a very ugly one.

"The world is a domain of pain and fear...a place where the strong oppress the weak and get away with it."

For reasons unknown at this point, a few kids will draw revolutionary conclusions from this lesson--Mao did, for example.

Most people, as they grow up, draw different conclusions...fascist ones. Do you think the American mercenaries in Iraq who boast of their murderous prowess fell out of the sky?

A number of civilized countries in western Europe have criminalized parental violence against children. I doubt if there's all that much enforcement yet...but it's a small step in the right direction.

I don't suppose there's much doubt as to where my sympathies are on this issue. But just to nail it down: when I read a news story where some kid has killed a violent parent, it makes my day!

I think it should happen a lot more often than it does.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Kapitan [email protected] 12 2003, 04:18 AM
SonofRage...and you support that shit!? :huh:

DON'T BEAT CHILDREN!!! :angry:
Main Entry: 1joke
Pronunciation: 'jOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yAcati he asks
Date: 1670
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING

[Intifada]

i reckon physical discipline of children is wrong. i think that beatings go round in circles. if a parent beats a kid, the kid will end up beating his kid and become more abusive. its a vicious cycle.

a bit like nazism. the nazis persecuted the jews, now the jews persecute the arabs.

[Danton]

"The world is a domain of pain and fear...

That's an invaluble lesson for anyone to learn, it's reality.. Better the parent teach them than some thug on the street because sooner or later reality bites and a line is crossed where yes, only physical punishment is understood...

A number of civilized countries in western Europe have criminalized parental violence against children

Violent abuse of a child and controlled discipline are two very different things. Would you equate a parent smacking their childs bottom, not in anger, after repeated warnings - to the kind of sick sadism we recently saw in London regarding the Climbie case, where a young girl was subjected to prolonged and horrifying abuse such as cigarette burns? These are two different worlds....


. i think that beatings go round in circles. if a parent beats a kid, the kid will end up beating his kid and become more abusive. its a vicious cycle.

Everybody has a choice to break these cycles whatever their upbringing....

[Rastafari]

Violent abuse of a child and controlled discipline are two very different things. Would you equate a parent smacking their childs bottom, not in anger, after repeated warnings - to the kind of sick sadism we recently saw in London regarding the Climbie case, where a young girl was subjected to prolonged and horrifying abuse such as cigarette burns? These are two different worlds....
exactly.

you know, the "time out" only goes so far. If children don't have any respect for their parents, then there is no way they can be controlled.

[Sheep]

I think kids appreciate it when adults actually treat them like people. Little, stupid people who cry a lot.
-unknown

I love to go to the playground and watch the children jumping up and down. They don't know I'm firing blanks.
- unknown

The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
- Jack Handey

--just some quotes about children to lighten the mood--

[Invader Zim]

The use of an instrument to inflict pain on a child is an appauling thing. To "flog" a child is discusting to me, however there is a differance between "smacking" a child and beating the shit out of it with a cane. Practically everyone I know was "smacked" by their parents, and they are not all corrupted individuals. So I would certainly not allow a "weapon" to be used, but smacking I am not sure about....

Personally I would not smack a child, but thats just my view.

[redstar2000]

If children don't have any respect for their parents, then there is no way they can be controlled.

And if workers have no respect for their bosses, then there is no way they can be controlled.


...because sooner or later reality bites and a line is crossed where yes, only physical punishment is understood...

Yes, it is understood that it is "better" to "kick the ass" of someone weaker than to have your ass kicked by someone stronger.

And if you're not very strong, it is "better" to buy or steal a weapon.

Great lesson, that!


Violent abuse of a child and controlled discipline are two very different things.

Chattel slavery and wage slavery are two very different things...but they stem from the same motivation: profit.

The purpose of "discipline" is to teach obedience to authority...an utterly vile and reprehensible idea!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:34 AM

Carl Panzram
what does a notorious ass-raper have to do with anything?
Psychologists (and Carl Panzram, way back when) believe that Panzram wouldn't have gone on his international rampage (thousands of crimes and dozens, if not hundreds, of murders) if he were not abused as a child, both by his parents and his school.

[Rastafari]

If children don't have any respect for their parents, then there is no way they can be controlled.

And if workers have no respect for their bosses, then there is no way they can be controlled.

If you can sucessfully prove to me the simularities, then I won't post another word

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Completely regardless of Redstar's stance on spanking children, I think that his arrogance towards the working class really comes out in this thred, as he clearly equates children to the working class! Disgusting, Redstar, absolutrely disgusting.

Moving on to the subject at hand. Children cannot be trusted to take care of themselves and to have rights to complete self-determination. Therefore they need guidance and often forceful guidance. I'm not condoning physical discipline, however. Physical discipline, I think simply perpetuates violence.

[Rastafari]

Completely regardless of Redstar's stance on spanking children, I think that his arrogance towards the working class really comes out in this thred, as he clearly equates children to the working class! Disgusting, Redstar, absolutrely disgusting.

I don't want to start a war on two fronts here (and certainly not with you VC, of all people), but I don't think that was what he intended to do. I've never seen any arrogance on his part towards the working class. I don't think he wanted to compare the working class to children, but maybe he did. who knows...

[dancingoutlaw]

The purpose of "discipline" is to teach obedience to authority...an utterly vile and reprehensible idea!

Is obedience to your parents as the first authority figures in your life an evil thing? Yes parents need to teach discipline. That is one of their jobs. Be whatever society that is around.... capitalistic... communistic.... anarchy.... there needs to be a common discipline for said society to function. Even without a central authority as in anarchy there has to be a common respect for others... which takes discpline. Not the discpline of the belt but discipline administered by love which will unfortunatly and hopefully infrequently include a physical correction like a swat on the behind. If there is a better solution please inform me.

Peace

[Rastafari]

why are you restricted? I thought you were a socialist

[dancingoutlaw]

Rastafari I guess you are talking to me. I'm Libertarian. But a nice guy all the same.

Peace

[redstar2000]

Completely regardless of Redstar's stance on spanking children, I think that his arrogance towards the working class really comes out in this thred, as he clearly equates children to the working class! Disgusting, Redstar, absolutrely disgusting.

Among other effects, it's clear that Leninism rots the brain...interfering with both the ability to read with comprehension and to spell correctly.

It is bosses that regard the working class as disobedient children who must be disciplined.

The parallel I was drawing is between those who want to "control" their children and those who want to control "their" workers.

Is that clear?


Is obedience to your parents as the first authority figures in your life an evil thing?

Yes!


Not the discipline of the belt but discipline administered by love which will unfortunately and hopefully infrequently include a physical correction like a swat on the behind.

Gee, that doesn't sound so "bad", does it?

This isn't the first time this issue has been raised at Che-Lives, and I've noticed an interesting pattern. It begins with a loud "belt" and then sort of "mutes" into a quiet "swat".

As if "if only" the right (innocuous) words can be found, then it will be "ok".

That may fool others, it does not fool me. The purpose of violence is intimidation pure and simple. Directed by an adult against a child, it is utterly disgusting...regardless of the "spin".


If there is a better solution, please inform me.

What "problem" are you seeking a "solution" for?

If you think obedience to authority is a "good thing", violence works great.

Applied in careful dosages, you can emulate the early 20th century Prussians and create your own little private Wehrmacht.

If you want your kids to grow up loving freedom and willing to fight for it, then you must not terrorize or intimidate them, physically, verbally, or emotionally.

Get them used to freedom when they're young...and they won't accept oppression when they grow up.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

In a capitalist society, I agree with instilling values of revolutionary freedom in the minds of children.

I would disagree with planting those seeds of dissent in a communist society, however. The absence of a state, I think, would call for some sort of values instilled into children from an early age (in a non-violent manner, of course) that serving society rather than one's own selfish, individualistic needs, is the right way to go.

In discussions like these, therefore, I believe it is imperative to explain which society one is referring to with regards to the punishment and discipline of children.

[dancingoutlaw]

This isn't the first time this issue has been raised at Che-Lives, and I've noticed an interesting pattern. It begins with a loud "belt" and then sort of "mutes" into a quiet "swat".

In my first reply post to this forum I said a swat to the bottom is needed from time to time. I also said that there is a difference between discipline and abuse.


What "problem" are you seeking a "solution" for?

If you think obedience to authority is a "good thing", violence works great.

Applied in careful dosages, you can emulate the early 20th century Prussians and create your own little private Wehrmacht.

If you want your kids to grow up loving freedom and willing to fight for it, then you must not terrorize or intimidate them, physically, verbally, or emotionally.

Get them used to freedom when they're young...and they won't accept oppression when they grow up.

I do not understand what you are implying. The simple act of correcting the behavior of a child is going to cause a fascistic society to raise up? I could do the same with my own home Nazi starter kit? I am sorry but that is one of the most absurd things I have heard since the theory that early potty training contributed to the overall phyche of the Germans to allow the rise of Hitler. Children need to be disciplined. We are not born with an already programmed knowledge of how the world works. Cause and effect. Yes, let a child fail, fall, skin his or her knee and learn their own lesson in life. But some lessons are better taught by a simple No and a swat on the buttocks because that result is a lot less painful then if the child would learn it on their own.

Peace

[truthaddict11]

why is hitting a child the way to solve a problem? is it "easier" for you to use violence ? does it make you feel "big" to pick on and beat someone smaller and weaker than you?

[Sabocat]

Who defines that what the child is being "swatted" for is correct anyway? To the parent, in their mind, it may seem that they are correcting a childs behaviour but what is being corrected?

Suppose a kid is growing up in a madly racist household. Suppose that child has a friend at school that he likes to hang around with and suppose that child is a person of color. Suppose the father sees his child playing with this child and decides that his child needs to be corrected for having a minority friend by giving him a stern swatting. You could use this scenario for a child with a communist friend, a gay friend, etc, etc.

Do you think that "corrective spanking" is going to encourage free thought from the child? It's oppression plain and simple. All that is being accomplished is bending a child's thoughts to that of his parents through fear and intimidation.

[Mano Dayak]

I was slapped as a child and I would never do something like this with my own children.

[Exploited Class]

Swatting a kid, just makes a kid not want to get caught.

Gaining your child's trust and having an open relationship with them and having them respect you for you being you through pain's taking work and time, makes a kid not want to do things you would disaprove of in the first place.

You don't want a kid to not do something because "they might get in trouble", you want them to not do certain things because they don't want to damage that bond you have worked so hard to obtain.

The thing is, you aren't always going to be there to spank them, and kids know this. The idea is that they don't do things they know to be wrong, when you aren't around to catch them.

[redstar2000]

I do not understand what you are implying. The simple act of correcting the behavior of a child is going to cause a fascistic society to raise up? I could do the same with my own home Nazi starter kit?

I am not "implying" it, I'm asserting for a fact that the origins of fascist attitudes lie in violence against children in the name of "discipline", "order", "control", etc.

Is it not a fact that right down at the very core of fascist ideology is the view that "the strong should rule the weak with an iron fist"?

How do people become receptive to this idea? Why, the same way they become "receptive" to religion...they have it pounded into them when they are weak and helpless, both physically and intellectually.


Children need to be disciplined.

As I noted previously, every despot always feels that way about "his" subjects.


We are not born with an already programmed knowledge of how the world works. Cause and effect. Yes, let a child fail, fall, skin his or her knee and learn their own lesson in life.

What does this have to do with violence against children, be it "belt" or "swat"? The real world has forceful if mindless ways of teaching small children the laws of practical physics and the limits of human abilities.

Having minds and (supposedly) being adults, can we not do better than that?


But some lessons are better taught by a simple No and a swat on the buttocks because that result is a lot less painful then if the child would learn it on their own.

It is not simply the intensity of pain that is the measure here; it is the source of pain. Children are very trusting of their adult caretakers...they do not anticipate pain being inflicted on them by someone who they think "cares" about them.

Granted, you may upset a child by violently snatching her from the path of an oncoming vehicle...but that's not the same as hitting her for stepping into the street without looking.

As it is, the world is a rather unfriendly place for children...human artifacts are mostly designed for "big people" and "little people" have difficulties enough in the simplest activities.

To patiently teach children how to survive the dangers of an unfriendly world takes a good deal of time and effort.

It's easy to think of parental violence as a "short cut"...a quick, efficient way to get the kid to do this and not do that..."for the kid's own good" of course.

What you are really teaching is the old Prussian slogan "Befehl ist Befehl!"

An order is an order...and must be obeyed.

Once they learn that one, fascism is easy.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

So RedStar, when your children would talk back to you and call you a fucker or something, you'd just let it slide.

"Its good for a kid to do want ever they want! You did a real good thing there, Timmy!"

[Danton]

It's easy to think of parental violence as a "short cut"...a quick, efficient way to get the kid to do this and not do that..."for the kid's own good" of course.

It shouldn't be easy, it should be the very final recourse. Children do not consider reasonable argument or logic, sibling infants will naturally resolve disputes with violence before any adult has layed a hand on them...

It is (unfortunatley) the way of the jungle and until we live in this glorious utopia when violence is eradicated as a means of control, Parents must be trusted to raise their children to respect them, themselves and others without nannying from the state...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think we can all agree that children must be controled, they cannot be left to control themselves in every situation. If parents are to raise their children and guide them, sometimes making the child do something is necessary. Parents must be left with the choice of resorting to telling their child to do something as opposed to simply having to ask them to obey, wouldn't you say so, Redstar?

Sorry for the arrogance thing. It doesn't really make sense, does it? :lol:

[truthaddict11]

hitting the child wouldnt accomplish anything. heres a little story, my grandfather , a chicago cop, would stand on my fathers feet and punch him when he was a kid ! when my father got older he beat up on my mom. And I was nearly choked to death with a belt used by my mom. I dont want the same thing to ever happen to me or my children. there are better solutions to problems than to hit a child.

why is hitting a child the answer to your problems?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I am against physical discipline, by the way.

[Danton]

my grandfather , a chicago cop, would stand on my fathers feet and punch him when he was a kid !

That's abuse not discipline, there must be a distinction..

[Pro-MyIdeals]

physical abuse on children is plain wrong...but i firmly believe in spanking a child...young children do not have the mental capacity to understand what a "time out" is...you are not spanking the child to hurt them, you are spanking them to jar their system into realizing what they did was wrong...the older a child gets and more they devlop mentally, the less spanking should occur

their is a problem nowadays where you have all these "P.C." paretns raising their children, who then become such problems when they hit teenage and early twenties...there are a lot of problems now that arise from this

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 06:55 AM
So RedStar, when your children would talk back to you and call you a fucker or something, you'd just let it slide.
I'd be more intrestred in where I went wrong in parenting and as a role model, to have my child do something like that.

Obviously I act that way to my partner or my partner acted like that towards me and my kid picked up on it. Apparently I am doing my best if my child is reacting that way directly towards me. Or I have done something wrong; because a response like that from a kid to a parent is stemming from a break down in a relationship somewhere.

[Danton]

I'd be more intrestred in where I went wrong in parenting and as a role model, to have my child do something like that.

Maybe the child views you as a soft touch, an attitude which later on in life can have dire consequences as I well know..

Children are curious, they will get into mischief, they will test the limits of right and wrong. Without guidance how can they find these limits? A set of values must be instilled..


edit;grammer

[Rastafari]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=0#entry221218 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=15218&st=0#entry221218)

[redstar2000]

I think it's interesting--and revealing--that there's been little said in response to the explicit points raised by Exploited Class and myself.

Even when truthaddict11 raised concrete examples, the response was "that's abuse, not discipline".

Where is this mysterious line to be drawn...except in the mind of the abuser?

What parent is going to get up in public and say "of course I physically abuse my kids...it's good for them"?


So RedStar, when your children would talk back to you and call you a fucker or something, you'd just let it slide.

I might reply "Oh yeah? I think you're being a worse fucker than me!"

It's not the word "fucker" that is relevant here...it's that fact that there's a disagreement of some kind taking place.

But your question suggests that kids should "never talk back"...never express an opposing opinion--and if they do, you should hit them.

One thing for sure...once they connect the idea of open disagreement with getting hit, there's an excellent chance that they'll always be afraid to disagree.

Just what every boss dreams of.


Children do not consider reasonable argument or logic, sibling infants will naturally resolve disputes with violence before any adult has laid a hand on them...

It is (unfortunately) the way of the jungle...

Which your strategy will reinforce.

Is that what you want?

Do you want your kids to learn how to respond to rational argument?

Or do you want to encourage their "natural instincts"?

Or do you see them as "hairless chimps" that are incapable of reason?

I have discovered that even cats be can taught non-violently not to do things that piss me off...it's a matter of looking at things through the cat's eyes.

It ought to be a lot easier to see things through the eyes of a human child...but how few ever make the effort?

It's so much more convenient just to hit them.


Parents must be trusted to raise their children to respect them, themselves and others...

And in the absence of cogent arguments on behalf of such desirable goals, violence will serve, eh?

At best what you have "taught" is respect for superior strength. Perhaps that will suffice, in your eyes.


I think we can all agree that children must be controlled, they cannot be left to control themselves in every situation.

Be specific. What do you want to "make" your kids do? Or not do?

Learn the proper use of an indoor toilet? Learn to pretend to like the taste of spinach? Learn to drop to the floor and bow to your exalted presence whenever you enter the room?

The general statement is uninformative and useless...and I do not "agree".


...but I firmly believe in spanking a child...young children do not have the mental capacity to understand what a "time out" is...you are not spanking the child to hurt them, you are spanking them to jar their system into realizing what they did was wrong...

When your computer fucks up, does it help to kick it a few times? The brain of a child is a far more sensitive "device".

Young children understand perfectly well the equation: isolation = disapproval.

Being naturally sociable (like all primates), they will make the connection between isolation (which they don't like) and some disapproved activity.

The very spread of the "time out" approach suggests its effectiveness...had the idea been a useless one, it would have quickly died out. (Even cats kind of understand it, by the way.)


There is a problem nowadays where you have all these "P.C." parents raising their children, who then become such problems when they hit teenage and early twenties...there are a lot of problems now that arise from this...

"Thanks for that. Now stay tuned to Fox for an upcoming report on American progress in Iraq."


Children are curious, they will get into mischief, they will test the limits of right and wrong. Without guidance how can they find these limits? A set of values must be instilled.

No question about it; but that's not the issue in this thread, as you well know.

What values? And "instilled" in what fashion?

The use of violence by the strong against the weak to command obedience is a "value".

Hitler's father used to beat the crap out of his kid...and did Adolph learn or did he really learn?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay, school, for example. Are you going to say, "Johnny, would you like to go to school today?"
Or violence, if your kid is beating up on soem other kid, are you gonna sit there and ask your child to stop because it might hurt the other child. Children cannot be left to learn everything by trial and error and observing the direct consequences of their actions. I agree that this would probably solve lots of problems, but it would create much more. Children often need strict guidance.

[Rastafari]

QUOTE
So RedStar, when your children would talk back to you and call you a fucker or something, you'd just let it slide.


I might reply "Oh yeah? I think you're being a worse fucker than me!"

It's not the word "fucker" that is relevant here...it's that fact that there's a disagreement of some kind taking place.

But your question suggests that kids should "never talk back"...never express an opposing opinion--and if they do, you should hit them.

One thing for sure...once they connect the idea of open disagreement with getting hit, there's an excellent chance that they'll always be afraid to disagree.

Just what every boss dreams of.


so you would let your child argue with you and not have him or her realize any penalties behind arguing an incorrect point, being disobediant to his parent, or just being disrespectful? Children have to be taught some socialization before they can enter society itself. If little Timmy is going around saying whatever he thinks about everyone, be it "polite" or not, he will have a hard go of things. And before you go on telling me that letting your kids have a run of things on their terms will make them socially or politically motivated, "free", or any other idealized quality, you have to realize that little Timmy will inherit none of these things, but rather a sense that the world revolves around him or her.

[Iron Star]

When I was young (3 to 4 years old) my stepfather would pour palmolive or dawn down my throat whenever I cussed. I only did it about three times, that was it. That stuff makes you feel like your throats on fire. I remember vomiting too.

Now I wouldn't recommend pouring soap down your kids throat because they mouthed off or cussed (thats borderline abuse), but i do believe it is necessary for parents to lay down the law every once and a while. A couple of whacks on the butt with a ping pong paddle or a smack to the face isn't going to scar a child for life.

[Rastafari]

and it certainly won't make an army of little Fuhrers...

[redstar2000]

Okay, school, for example. Are you going to say, "Johnny, would you like to go to school today?"

When kids say they "don't want" to do something that you want them to do, are you willing to ask why? And listen?

And if the reasons are good ones, are you willing to modify your own behavior accordingly?

Kids who are being bullied are often markedly reluctant to accept that. Are you prepared to back them up?

Some bright kids are bored shitless by school; what are you prepared to do about that?

On the other hand, some kids find academia to be too challenging...it makes them feel stupid and worthless? What's your response?

Want to really take the trouble to look after your kid? Or exchange it under the universal warranty plan for a "trouble-free" model?

Or scream at the kid? Or try to intimidate the kid? Or hit the kid?

For the moment, you can still do whatever you wish...but there will come a time when that will no longer be possible.

In 1830, people who were opposed to slavery were thought to be idealistic nutballs. The same was said of the first feminists in 1848.

You know the direction of history just as well as I do; the time is coming when kids will be free.

Relish your "authority" while you still have the chance.


So you would let your child argue with you and not have him or her realize any penalties behind arguing an incorrect point, being disobedient to his parent, or just being disrespectful?

Notice how that word "parent" is in bold-faced type?

In 1600, they would have said king. Or pope. Or even Almighty God.

We don't go in much for that kind of silliness any more...but there are still those who believe that an act of sexual intercourse followed by conception and birth confers, in some mystical fashion, an "obligation" on the part of the resulting child to express "special deference" to the adult parties involved..."parents".

It's called "respect" and what it really means is submission.

Rational criticism is almost irrelevant in this context; we're talking about an age-old superstition...that the old are inherently superior to the young and are automatically entitled to obedience by the young.

Comparing this myth to real-life experience is sufficient to utterly demolish it...but, like religion, it's very hard for some people to do that.

Perhaps it's further evidence of my "cynicism", but I can't help but suspect that some of those who were on the shitty end of the stick have now begun to relish the prospect of being the blow-giver rather than the blow-taker.

Like some emancipated slaves in Roman times...as soon as they could afford it, they went out and bought themselves a slave.

Pretty sick, huh?


...a sense that the world revolves around him or her.

It does. That's the definition of an individual.

Anyone who says "I'm just doing what I do to help you" is not only lying but is probably a rogue.

Liberation is not a "charity"...it is an act that is first of all in one's own direct self-interest.

Someone who thinks the world revolves around somebody besides themselves is fit only to be a groupie...or a stormtrooper.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[(*]

I got hit when I was a kid. Not all the time, just when I did something and deserved it. But I also got plenty of love and compassion.

I went to a school with corporal punishment as well.

I believed it all molded me into the respectful, responsible person I believe I am today.

Times have changed.

I, however, would not hit my own children.

[Rasta Sapian]

I was never beat growing up, I had great parents. I am down with what Rastafari wrote on keeping your kids in check!

I bet Karl Marx never beat his kids, I don't know about Engles though. :D







pEaCe In ThE mIdDlE eAsT

[Guest1]

This was supposed to be posted a few days ago, but the board kept telling me it was offline everytime I tried to post :unsure: sorry if the discussion has drifted or anything:

psychological research has proven pretty conclusively that negative reinforcement does not work on children
sure, sometimes, the child will listen out of fear. but, speaking from experience, s/he will either turn it into a battle of wills (you can't keep beating me forever), develop deep problems, or a combination of both.

now as to your strawman arguments, completely avoiding the issue of alternative child-raising and pretending the lack of beastly treatment means no discipline at all:

children aren't dumb, they are learning and are sometimes even smarter than many adult because they ask questions. use that. tell them why they shouldn't touch a hot stove, that it burns and hurts. if they don't get the message and you want to beat them, you're a sick fuck because they aren't old enough to understand words yet. simple as that. it's not that difficult to understand pain. and thinking children are that dumb is dangerous and pretty backwards.

when they see you respect them and you are patient, they will listen. provide reasons, don't let them think you're arbitrary, and they will listen. I've done it with dozens of children within less than one month, turned them from rebellious around everyone to listening to every word I say and respecting me. their parents go fucking nuts, cause they can't control their child but I can. of course, when I explain how, they think I'm a child who doesn't understand. but that doesn't change the fact that it works.




lastly, marx said one of the things we should stand against in society, is the tendency to consider children as property. they're not your children. they are human beings. and if you raise a hand against one, I would cheer them if they struck back, as I did beginning at the age of 12.

[dancingoutlaw]

Young children understand perfectly well the equation: isolation = disapproval.

Being naturally sociable (like all primates), they will make the connection between isolation (which they don't like) and some disapproved activity.

The very spread of the "time out" approach suggests its effectiveness...had the idea been a useless one, it would have quickly died out. (Even cats kind of understand it, by the way.)

Redstar I disagree with your isolation torture. Isolation has been denounced by amnesty international as cruelty. How can you raise a child in such a way that he will inevetably grow up to lead a popular revolution that would end in the genocide of a religious belief and a world war that would include in this day a nuclear conflict.


I have discovered that even cats be can taught non-violently not to do things that piss me off...it's a matter of looking at things through the cat's eyes

I teach my cats by squirting them with a water pistol. I do fear though that they may get get the wrong impression with the pstols and subjugate the mice to their will.

Redstar I hate to make light of your argument. You make excellent points about listening to children and changing your behavior to fit their needs. I believe that good parents do that anyway. My mother would hit us on the butt with a fly swatter. It didn't hurt but it got our attention. Because of her southern drawl it would always sound like she was going to get the "flaw swatter" and hit us. I always thought that she was trying to swat the flaws out of us. Don't get me wrong my brothers and I deserved to get hit with the fly swatter. Heck they probably should have been harder on us.... we deserved it. One day my brother before being punished ripped the fly swatter out of my mom's hands and snapped it in two. My parents being kind and wise did not escalate the situation but realized that we were old enough to endure a physical torture of another sort. From then on whenever we did anything wrong Dad would concoct a meaningless work activity that was so boring that we prayed for the day or week or month to end. The worse though was when dad had to pick me up from the back of a police car. He did nothing. I was beyond punishment. That my freinds was the worst of all. Without the tangible feeling of punishment I could not have ever understood the intangible feeling of utter disappointment. That no matter how hard they tried they still had to go through the ordeal of picking up their son from the police. There would have been no talking this one out. There would have been no reasoning. I knew all along that any punishment I got was because I did something extremly wrong. In the dire cases I got my "flaws" swatted. I always knew that it ws out of love that it happened. When the punishment didn't happen I feared I had lost their love. I took great pains to make them proud ever since. That is what discipline is about. That is what respect is about. I am sorry to disagree but a swift spanking to re-enforce a lesson to a child is not going to make another Hitler. Continual beatings, which no one here advocates is not healthy, but one does not lead to the other. No real parent feels big when they have to discipline their child. No parent really enjoys it. Parents would rather their child be happy and have oppurtunities they themselves never had. I have no beef with you. I just think equating simple spanking (not abuse and there is a difference) to the rise of totalitarian death industries is a little far fetched.

Peace

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 12 2003, 07:41 PM
I can always tell the kids who get spankings, they are more aggresive, try to solve issues with physical means or they have no self esteem and are very shy.
Or both, in my case. :ph34r:

[Danton]

Hitler's father used to beat the crap out of his kid

Totally irrelavant, the examples we've had are of abuse not discipline. Again, there must be a distinction - unless you seriously consider a controlled smack on the butt for extreme misbehaviour equal to random acts of sadism..
Surely you can see the difference...

At best what you have "taught" is respect for superior strength.

No, respect for the parent.. When you lock your children in isolation you are effectivley using "superior strength" to do so. Only the problem will simmer rather than being quickly done and dusted..

Let me say though that I personally think that removing privaleges(sp?) is more effective than either but the parent must decide not the state..

Do you want your kids to learn how to respond to rational argument?

Or do you want to encourage their "natural instincts"?

Both, only by instilling clear definitions of right and wrong is this possible.. That is every parents responsibility...

do you see them as "hairless chimps" that are incapable of reason?

No I dont, children are bright, they can learn quickly how to manipulate their parents through emotional blackmail.. They know when they've done wrong -if suitable punishment isn't forthcoming they may start to beleive they can continue to do wrong, in the real world (which is what we are dealing with here) such mentality will have consequences...

And chimps are also capable of reason...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, I'm not saying that children's opinions shouldn't be regarded, that's really not the point. I don't believe I ever said that children must blindly submit themselves to their parents. However, children often don't know or want what is best for them, and parents do. You cannot deny this. Parents should obviously take into consideration what troubles their child, and make a responsible decision for their child. It's called good parenting. I understand that some parenst demand that their children never talk back, never question them, and always follow their requests exactly. I've never done this, my parenst have never required this of me, and that's fine, but in many situations children will not or cannot make responsible decisions for themselves. If my parenst didn't make me go to school, I wouldn't go. Am I stupid? no. Am I a genius? No. I'd just rather be here. My parents know that and respect that, but school is more important, isn't it?

[redstar2000]

I got hit when I was a kid. Not all the time, just when I did something and deserved it.

What a sad statement!

What "somethings" you must have done!


But I also got plenty of love and compassion.

And that is supposed to "make up" for being hit.


I went to a school with corporal punishment as well.

It's only been in the last half-century that "educators" have finally begun to grasp that one does not have to use violence or the threat of violence to "make" children learn.

Prior to that, the superstition was universal that kids would never learn anything without having it beaten into them.

In a way, this thread demonstrates how stubborn that old superstition is and how difficult it is to root it out...for all the pro-violence views expressed so far rest on the assumption that "kids will not learn XYZ unless they are physically hurt".


I believed it all molded me into the respectful, responsible person I believe I am today.

Well, you "have" to believe that, don't you? Otherwise, you'd be a very angry person, wouldn't you? You would have spent the most vulnerable years of your life under constant threat of violence...doesn't that piss you off? And not violence from strangers (you can hide from strangers) but violence from those who you lived with...from whom there was no escape.

Should you ever conclude that the violence used against you was unjustified, then you'd have no rational choice but to hate those who did it...and you don't want to do that, do you?

It's...uncomfortable to think about things that way.

The shrinks even have a word for it--cognitive dissonance. It means the conflict caused by realizing that things are not what they seemed to be.

People who love you are not "supposed" to hurt you; if they do, that must really mean that they didn't love you.

Do people get nervous when they approach that "abyss"? Do bears shit in the woods?


I, however, would not hit my own children.

Ah, the escape. I "can't" challenge directly the outrageous behavior of my parents...but implicit criticism is "safe". I simply refuse to treat my kids the way my parents treated me.

An utterly damning conclusion!


I bet Karl Marx never beat his kids, I don't know about Engels though.

Engels didn't have any kids, at least "officially" (it was the Victorian Age, after all, and Engels never married). Visitors to the Marx household reported that the kids had the run of the place...pages of Das Kapital were scattered amidst the toys.

But no one really knows.


Redstar I disagree with your isolation torture. Isolation has been denounced by Amnesty International as cruelty.

Well, I don't think AI was talking about "time outs".

But, in principle, you're right. There have been cases where parents have kept their kids in closets for weeks, months, and years at a time. This is torture just as much as physical violence is and is just as reprehensible.


Don't get me wrong; my brothers and I deserved to get hit with the fly swatter. Heck they probably should have been harder on us.... we deserved it.

Again, I note that this is something that you "have" to say...because the alternative view would lead you to some extremely uncomfortable conclusions.


From then on whenever we did anything wrong Dad would concoct a meaningless work activity that was so boring that we prayed for the day or week or month to end.

Good training for life under capitalism.


In the dire cases I got my "flaws" swatted. I always knew that it was out of love that it happened. When the punishment didn't happen I feared I had lost their love.

Put that in logical form:

1. People show their love for their kids by inflicting physical pain on them.

2. You've stopped doing that.

3. Therefore, you don't love me any more, QED!

For some strange reason, I find the initial premise so obviously absurd that I have no choice but to reject the conclusion even though the logic is impeccable.

Here's one that makes a lot more sense to me:

1. People show their hatred for other people by inflicting physical harm on them.

2. You don't do that to me.

3. Therefore, whatever your feelings for me might be, hatred is not one of them...QED!


I am sorry to disagree but a swift spanking to re-enforce a lesson to a child is not going to make another Hitler.

So far, it's just made one...and that was one more than we needed.

But what of the seven million Germans who joined the Nazi Party? What were their childhoods like?

What of the mercenaries in America's armed forces in Iraq (and too many other places to list)? What were their childhoods like? What environmental circumstances shaped them into people who would do what they are doing and think it right?

Want to take a wild guess?


No real parent feels big when they have to discipline their child. No parent really enjoys it.

I didn't suggest they were doing it "for fun"...I said they were doing it for convenience. Physical violence against children is a "quick and easy" way to train kids to obey your whims without having to actually justify them.

Whatever lesson you think you're teaching, the real lesson is obey authority or suffer physical pain and humiliation.


Again, there must be a distinction - unless you seriously consider a controlled smack on the butt for extreme misbehaviour equal to random acts of sadism..
Surely you can see the difference...

The only difference I can see is in the extent of the physical harm that the child suffers.

After all, even sadists have their "standards". One might say--in court--that "I broke my kid's arm but at least I didn't crush his skull."


No, respect for the parent...

...who is stronger than the child and able to inflict pain without fear of retaliation.

You are teaching the rule of the strong over the weak...a fascist lesson.


...but the parent must decide not the state.

The present-day capitalist state is hardly to be trusted to do anything right.

With that understood, I think any parent who "swats" their kid should spend 30 days in the local jail; more serious abuse should be punished with increasing severity.

In communist society, on the other hand, the "punishment" would be entirely different. You hit your kids and you lose them...forever. And should you inflict grievous bodily harm on them, you'll probably just be taken out and summarily shot.


Both, only by instilling clear definitions of right and wrong is this possible.. That is every parent's responsibility...

I'm afraid this is an "either/or" choice...you don't get "both" in the real world.

And I'm also afraid that "clear definitions of right and wrong" are "out of print" at this time with little chance of renewal anytime prior to proletarian revolution.


...children are bright, they can learn quickly how to manipulate their parents through emotional blackmail.

"Why those little devils! I'll give them a taste of my belt!"

Emotional blackmail, indeed. A truly terrifying weapon in the hands of the small and weak vs. the physical strength of the large and strong.

Yes, it's a "fair fight", isn't it? Well, isn't it?


They know when they've done wrong -if suitable punishment isn't forthcoming they may start to believe they can continue to do wrong, in the real world (which is what we are dealing with here) such mentality will have consequences...

Ah, but what is "wrong"? Not flushing the toilet? Not eating spinach? Or not respecting authority?

Just imagine the consequences of "not respecting authority"! Like...um... er...revolution? Maybe?


If my parents didn't make me go to school, I wouldn't go. Am I stupid? No. Am I a genius? No. I'd just rather be here. My parents know that and respect that, but school is more important, isn't it?

I don't know, is it? Perhaps you are not a "genius", but perhaps you are bright enough to be bored shitless in the school you are attending. Perhaps you should be going to a different and more challenging school; perhaps you should spend seven hours a day in a large library reading serious books (and taking notes!); perhaps you'd actually learn more by spending all your time on the internet.

Learning is, when you stop and think about it, too important to be left to the whims of others--you must take responsibility for that yourself.

------------------------

I doubt that one of the sources of the pro-violence against children will come as any surprise. One quote among many...


6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence...Hebrews, 12:6-9

Clearly, it is far better to be a "bastard".

---------------------

For the civilized, I suggest...

Taking Children Seriously (http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Soul Rebel]

I would never ever hit my child- no spanking, no nothing. I dont think it is a good way of disciplining children. It does not teach them anything besides to fear the parent. If you want your child to behave they need to understand what they are doing wrong/right and why. If you hit them you dont offer them an explanation, so how will they ever know why they are truly being punished. They will understand that yes they did something wrong, but will not understand why it was wrong. So they would be doing or not doing things out of fear, for fear of being hit or punished, not because they understand their actions. Know what im saying?

[Rastafari]

"Spanked Poll" (http://www.misterpoll.com/results.wga?id=177436230)
"Not Spanked Poll" (http://www.misterpoll.com/results.wga?id=2644643138)

unfortunately this only represents the results of a large internet poll, which is very unreliable on many levels, but I'd ideally like to find a graph that conclusively shows levels of frustration, anxiety, and anger are very similar among those who were and weren't spanked. This one accomplishes that, and sometimes goes says that children who are spanked are more passive adults (which I know probably is false entirely, but an interesting peice of data).

Of course, this poll sucks at that because they are being asked about being angry and about being spanked in the same context, which would alter the results a little.

If you really consider light disciplining something that is harmful for the child, how do you feel about all that second-hand smoke you'll be blowing into little Timmy's face?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 12:24 PM

If my parents didn't make me go to school, I wouldn't go. Am I stupid? No. Am I a genius? No. I'd just rather be here. My parents know that and respect that, but school is more important, isn't it?

I don't know, is it? Perhaps you are not a "genius", but perhaps you are bright enough to be bored shitless in the school you are attending. Perhaps you should be going to a different and more challenging school; perhaps you should spend seven hours a day in a large library reading serious books (and taking notes!); perhaps you'd actually learn more by spending all your time on the internet.

Learning is, when you stop and think about it, too important to be left to the whims of others--you must take responsibility for that yourself.
First things first, you ignored most of my post.
Moving on. Okay, perhaps I was a bad example.
But what about young children? What do they know about child development? How can they analyze themselves if they have few standards and little to compare themselves to? I think that parents are more than qualified to make important decisions that their children cannot make wisely. Nobody has the best interests of children in mind like the parents of the children, not even the children themselves, sometimes. I would personaly feel extremely neglected if my parents allowed me to learn everything firsthand and if they gave me only suggestive guidlines. When asked not to swim after eating, how many children would obey because they want to? If advized to wait, who would actualy wait? Children don't know these things, Redstar.

[SonofRage]

A wise man once said:


Originally posted by "Maddox"

Remember: never take shit from your kids. You make payments on the house, utilities, their clothes, school, and their food. You own them. If they don't like it, they can move out. If you love your kids, love them enough to beat them so that they don't grow up to be idiots.

[redstar2000]

If you really consider light disciplining something that is harmful for the child, how do you feel about all that second-hand smoke you'll be blowing into little Timmy's face?

An irrelevancy; but, since you asked, I do not find the evidence of harm resulting from "second-hand smoke" to be convincing.

For that matter, I'm not impressed with the evidence for damage resulting from "first-hand" cigarette smoke.

If "little Timmy" wants to smoke, that's ok with me & I'll even purchase his favorite brand for him.

Make the most of that if you wish...it will not lighten the burden of your own deeds.


I think that parents are more than qualified to make important decisions that their children cannot make wisely. Nobody has the best interests of children in mind like the parents of the children, not even the children themselves, sometimes.

Two points:

1. It's a matter of direct public evidence that some significant number of parents do not have the child's best interests in mind...see any edition of any daily newspaper.

2. Parents can indeed "want to do the right thing" and still be wrong. Many parents sincerely believe that hitting their kids is "good for the kids"...it's an old tradition.

Like a great many old traditions, it just happens to be complete bullshit.


I would personally feel extremely neglected if my parents allowed me to learn everything firsthand and if they gave me only suggestive guidelines.

Would it be "too cruel" to suggest that this is the source of the appeal of Leninism to you? You want someone to tell you what to do. You lack the confidence in yourself to actively "figure out" what to do.

This lack of self-confidence is exactly what repressive parental styles cultivate. They are teaching you that the "best" thing to do is whatever your "superiors" tell you to do...because you are "incompetent" to figure things out on your own.


When asked not to swim after eating, how many children would obey because they want to? If advised to wait, who would actually wait? Children don't know these things, Redstar.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the "don't swim after eating" thing is an urban myth.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[truthaddict11]

it is an urban myth.

Rastafari, that poll is complete crap i was spanked and abused as a child and it did make me angry still a bit today too, i got in many fights when i was in elementry school. spanking and punishment i got didnt make me better.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 07:40 PM

I think that parents are more than qualified to make important decisions that their children cannot make wisely. Nobody has the best interests of children in mind like the parents of the children, not even the children themselves, sometimes.

Two points:

1. It's a matter of direct public evidence that some significant number of parents do not have the child's best interests in mind...see any edition of any daily newspaper.

2. Parents can indeed "want to do the right thing" and still be wrong. Many parents sincerely believe that hitting their kids is "good for the kids"...it's an old tradition.

Like a great many old traditions, it just happens to be complete bullshit.


I would personally feel extremely neglected if my parents allowed me to learn everything firsthand and if they gave me only suggestive guidelines.

Would it be "too cruel" to suggest that this is the source of the appeal of Leninism to you? You want someone to tell you what to do. You lack the confidence in yourself to actively "figure out" what to do.

This lack of self-confidence is exactly what repressive parental styles cultivate. They are teaching you that the "best" thing to do is whatever your "superiors" tell you to do...because you are "incompetent" to figure things out on your own.


When asked not to swim after eating, how many children would obey because they want to? If advised to wait, who would actually wait? Children don't know these things, Redstar.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the "don't swim after eating" thing is an urban myth.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
It's also a significant minority of parents. Economic equality would likely do away with most abusive and negligent parents.

You and I both know that there are other examples of what children are told to do that thay don't want to do. Eating in many cases is a good example. Taking medicines, etc.

You're pretty sneaky tehre, Redstar. You're not really replying to my post.

And the Leninism being derrived from my upbringing is a load of bollocks, mate. Politicaly, I would never submit to the unpopular will of "superiors". The people cannot be equated with children, redstar.

And I already said I am against physical disipline. But you cannot deny that parents generaly know what is best for the child's health and prosperity in life, beacuse they've been their, children haven't.

[Rastafari]

An irrelevancy; but, since you asked, I do not find the evidence of harm resulting from "second-hand smoke" to be convincing.

For that matter, I'm not impressed with the evidence for damage resulting from "first-hand" cigarette smoke.

If "little Timmy" wants to smoke, that's ok with me & I'll even purchase his favorite brand for him.

Make the most of that if you wish...it will not lighten the burden of your own deeds.

I don't see how this is any more irrelevant than equating children to workers. Or saying that a higher % of kids who are disciplined will grow up to be Hitler lovers. Take a poll on che-lives of people who were "disciplined" (not abused, mind you. there is a difference), and I'm sure you'll see we have our fair share of "mistreated" children.

I won't even go into debating the evidence of "second-hand smoke." the smokes companies have far too much money and control, and I'd be suprised if the data out there was actually lighter than what really was true. thats neither here nor there, however, as tobacco money has been known to trickle down to farmers.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think that children should only stay with their parents during their infant years, afterwards, the need to be submitted to the state for 24/7 education. Children are a far too valuable resourse to the community to see be abused/neglected.

[redstar2000]

You and I both know that there are other examples of what children are told to do that they don't want to do. Eating in many cases is a good example. Taking medicines, etc.

As I said before, be specific.

You want to "generalize" the matter because your evidence is shoddy or non-existent.

Eat what? Spinach? You can live to be 100 and never eat a single serving of spinach and you know that! In fact, kids could eat pretty much whatever they liked and, as long as they took a children's multi-vitamin every day, they'd do fine.

The reason, by the way, that children dislike vegetables in general (both taste and smell) is that their youthful receptors are more sensitive than those of adolescents or adults. Trying to force a kid to eat some kinds of vegetables is rather like trying to force an adult to eat a pile of vomit.

Yeah...I'm not exaggerating.


And I already said I am against physical discipline. But you cannot deny that parents generally know what is best for the child's health and prosperity in life, because they've been there, children haven't.

As a general principle, I do indeed "deny it". On a particular issue--a specific parent, a specific child, a specific issue--it may be true that "parent knows best".

I do not think there is any evidence to justify the "general principle" in many parent-child conflicts.

To those still in the grip of repressive parenthood superstitions, evidence is irrelevant. They're "right" because they're bigger and stronger.

And meaner.


Or saying that a higher % of kids who are disciplined will grow up to be Hitler lovers. Take a poll on che-lives of people who were "disciplined" (not abused, mind you. there is a difference), and I'm sure you'll see we have our fair share of "mistreated" children.

Well, the "Hitler-lovers" didn't just "fall out of the sky". What explains their existence?

Genetics?

I agree that Che-Lives does have "it's fair share" of people who were abused--or "disciplined" as you like to call it--as children.

What intrigues me is how they would "line up" with regard to the "left-right" divisions on this board?

My hypothesis is that the kids who were abused would be more likely to be among the "conservatives"...Leninists, right-wing "socialists", neo-puritans, god-believers, etc. while those who suffered little or no abuse would be more likely to be "ultra-leftists", extreme libertarians or anarchists, etc.

But recall that I also suggested that a small minority of kids draw revolutionary conclusions from their abuse...and cited Mao as an example. He actually wrote about his own life that his career as a revolutionary began in rebellion against his father's tyranny.

It may well be that at Che-Lives, we are getting a "skewed sample"...we are attracting the minority of kids who drew revolutionary conclusions from being abused.

So it's hard to say what a poll would reveal.

Particularly since people are reluctant sometimes to admit that they've been abused at all...it raises all those "uncomfortable" questions that I mentioned earlier.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

As I said before, be specific.

You want to "generalize" the matter because your evidence is shoddy or non-existent.

Eat what? Spinach? You can live to be 100 and never eat a single serving of spinach and you know that! In fact, kids could eat pretty much whatever they liked and, as long as they took a children's multi-vitamin every day, they'd do fine.

The reason, by the way, that children dislike vegetables in general (both taste and smell) is that their youthful receptors are more sensitive than those of adolescents or adults. Trying to force a kid to eat some kinds of vegetables is rather like trying to force an adult to eat a pile of vomit.

Yeah...I'm not exaggerating.

You'd be an awesome, albeit probably bad, parent.


I think that children should only stay with their parents during their infant years, afterwards, the need to be submitted to the state for 24/7 education. Children are a far too valuable resourse to the community to see be abused/neglected.


Jim Jones would be proud. Have some kool-aid, kid.



Well, the "Hitler-lovers" didn't just "fall out of the sky". What explains their existence?

Genetics?

I agree that Che-Lives does have "it's fair share" of people who were abused--or "disciplined" as you like to call it--as children.

What intrigues me is how they would "line up" with regard to the "left-right" divisions on this board?

My hypothesis is that the kids who were abused would be more likely to be among the "conservatives"...Leninists, right-wing "socialists", neo-puritans, god-believers, etc. while those who suffered little or no abuse would be more likely to be "ultra-leftists", extreme libertarians or anarchists, etc.

But recall that I also suggested that a small minority of kids draw revolutionary conclusions from their abuse...and cited Mao as an example. He actually wrote about his own life that his career as a revolutionary began in rebellion against his father's tyranny.


I'd say very few people have political ideas based on being spanked in their childhood. Nazis come from their environments usually, or are sucked in as teenagers into groups that "resocialize" them into good soldiers. They'd say the same thing about how good people become leftists, I suppose. The bad childhood has been used to explain everything from Bill Clinton's special handshake in the oval office to Micheal Jackson raping small boys. I'm afraid people have taken Freud and screwed his ideas all around. Blaming racism or hatred solely on being disciplined as a child is like blaming Southpark for Columbine.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What if the kid doesn't want to take his vitamins? Surely you're not suggesting that children ought to be left to decide upon their hygiene and health necessities on their own.

Example: A kid steps on a nail. He refuses to take a shot. Their is no satisfactory medium that can both please the kid and protect him from tetatnus. He is severely infected and nearly dies. Good going, Redstar.

edit: i better remove that :)

[synthesis]

Jim Jones would be proud. Have some kool-aid, kid.

That's an extremely weak argument. That's like capitalists saying that Nazis were Communist because they had healthcare.

Don't draw tangential comparisons like that. It's unbecoming.

[Danton]

You hit your kids and you lose them...forever. And should you inflict grievous bodily harm on them, you'll probably just be taken out and summarily shot

So you condone capital punishment - the ultimate enforcement of authority through violence. Yet condem a loving parents right to raise their children aswell as their ability to effectivley gauge what discipline is necessary for the child...


Well, the "Hitler-lovers" didn't just "fall out of the sky". What explains their existence?

A flight of fancy...

"Ohh it's not Adolf's fault - he can't help himself - ever since pops clouted him upside his head he ain't thinking right"

Fascists choose to be fascists every day of their lives as much as you or I choose our ideologies - I'm not defined soley by my personal history...

Ah, but what is "wrong"? Not flushing the toilet? Not eating spinach?

Certainly, not flushing the loo is a no no but of course there are degrees of wrongness which is why there must be degrees of punishment, including an ultimate punishment reserved for the ultimate wrongdoing - a cut off point.
A defined line not to be crossed, a preventative measure...


I'm afraid this is an "either/or" choice...you don't get "both" in the real world.

Forgive my ignorance but why's that? Are all our natural instincts wrong - is that what your saying?


And I'm also afraid that "clear definitions of right and wrong" are "out of print" at this time with little chance of renewal anytime prior to proletarian revolution.

A universal sense of right and wrong is imprinted on all of us with a conscience...

"Why those little devils! I'll give them a taste of my belt!"

Flippant and unhelpful, I have never in this thread condoned the use of inanimate objects as instruments of discipline, only the right of the parent to use as a last resort one firm hand across the backside after repeated warnings and explaination delivered not with anger but love... In an idealistic world it would never come to that but we don't live there yet...

[redstar2000]

What if the kid doesn't want to take his vitamins?

Dear me! You put the vitamin in a spoon of jam or jelly...kids like jam/jellies, in case you hadn't noticed.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it?


Surely you're not suggesting that children ought to be left to decide upon their hygiene and health necessities on their own.

Well, yes and no. I've observed that some parents impose draconian regimes upon their children "in the name of hygiene/health" that actually have very little to do with either.

They are really "power trips" on the part of the parents.

When a child is obviously in need of professional medical care, you needn't stop and inquire as to her preferences...you take her to the doctor.

But consider this example: as it happens, my apartment building is located right next door to a small dental clinic. Every day, I see parents dragging their small children to the dentist...even though dental work is obviously a waste of time and money on childhood teeth. (Dentists claim otherwise, of course. Since they have a financial stake in the outcome, their advice is not neutral.)

Dental work is, as you know, very painful. What happens when kids are exposed to this is not difficult to figure out; as soon as they are old enough, they simply stop going to dentists at all. Because they were unnecessarily hurt when they were very young, they end up hurting their own health when they get older.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?


A kid steps on a nail. He refuses to take a shot. Their is no satisfactory medium that can both please the kid and protect him from tetanus. He is severely infected and nearly dies. Good going, Redstar.

It's been 50 years since I was a child and I'm amazed that you can come up with the same things that I heard when I was a little kid.

Do parents still worry about kids "stepping on a nail"? Really?

I suppose it must happen on occasion...though I have never heard of a real-life example.

Be that as it may, I suppose the kid has to take the shot. It's interesting to note the substantial number of kids who are utterly terrified of needles...and I wonder why that is so. Even some hospitalized kids suffering major illnesses and in extreme pain will try to hide their pain and refuse pain-killing medications for fear of the needle. True.


You'd be an awesome, albeit probably bad, parent.

I will never know.

But, for what it's worth, I do seem to get along with kids better than many.


The bad childhood has been used to explain everything from Bill Clinton's special handshake in the oval office to Micheal Jackson raping small boys.

Funny. But that doesn't answer the question, does it? I'm not in any sense a Freudian and, in fact, think most of his ideas were mystical nonsense and not scientific in any sense of the word.

Except one: our childhood environment has enormous (and still largely unknown) influence over what kind of people we become.

That is an "insight" that makes sense to me...regardless of how complicated the factors actually turn out to be.

In adolescence, we see the outcome of what happened earlier: one kid is "receptive" to Nazi ideas, another is "receptive" to communist ideas, and most are not really "receptive" to any ideas but just go along with whatever happens to be fashionable at the time.

When I was 13 and curious, I actually read Hitler's book. Why? Because I started from the premise that anything that my culture condemned couldn't be all bad.

Well, I was wrong...Hitler's book is crap and that becomes clear in the first dozen pages of a 600-page book. It wasn't what I was looking for; I was "unreceptive".

I also read the Communist Manifesto at the same time and for the same reason...but I lacked the background knowledge to really understand it. I didn't think it was crap; I thought it was too complicated for me to understand and just put it aside.

What was I "looking for"? I think you can guess: I was looking for a radical critique of a culture in which big people dominated little people. I was looking for a literature of "children's liberation"...even if I had no idea that such a thing existed.

Oddly enough, at the very time I was looking, Paul Goodman was writing Growing Up Absurd...though it would be another eight years before I read it.

Even now, as this thread has demonstrated, the idea that kids are people, not some kind of parental property, is still held by the smallest of minorities.

Even the idea of "children's rights" is still considered "the work of the devil" by conservatives of all faiths.

And even here, among people who want to "change the world", there are many who don't want to change that...who still believe that parental authority is "sacred" and are willing to approve of violence against children to maintain it.

There is such a long way to go.

But, unless we humans render ourselves extinct, the journey will be made.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

So you condone capital punishment - the ultimate enforcement of authority through violence. Yet condemn a loving parent's right to raise their children as well as their ability to effectively gauge what discipline is necessary for the child...

Yes, as it happens, I do "condone" capital punishment under several circumstances...grevious bodily harm to children being one of them.

Believe it or not, I'm of the view that execution is actually more humane than lengthy imprisonment.

Now let's get to that "loving parent". I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed many of them over the last half-century or so. I know they exist...indeed, I know one couple very well who are absolutely incredible with their 14-month-old toddler--he's a really lucky kid and, believe me, it shows.

I would be shocked to hear a harsh word from them toward their little one...much less a blow.

Now, how typical is that couple? Well, older kids and young adults will often, in the course of conversation, tell you stories of their childhood. I've never heard any good ones...in perhaps hundreds of such conversations. And a few I've heard have been utterly horrifying.

So I trust you will understand why I regard your hypothetical "loving parent" with considerable skepticism. It mostly appears to me to be a self-justifying mythology, rather like a "benevolent" despotism or a "loving" "God".


Fascists choose to be fascists every day of their lives as much as you or I choose our ideologies - I'm not defined solely by my personal history...

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not attempting to excuse fascists from responsibility for their choices. What I'm suggesting is that violence against children "predisposes" them in later years to being receptive to fascist ideology or portions thereof.

If that hypothesis is wrong, then some other explanation must be found. Are some people "born fascists"? Is there a gene-complex that dictates political opinions? That seems much more far-fetched than what I propose.


...but of course there are degrees of wrongness which is why there must be degrees of punishment, including an ultimate punishment reserved for the ultimate wrongdoing - a cut off point.
A defined line not to be crossed, a preventative measure...

Certainly there are degrees of wrongness...but what is "the ultimate wrongdoing"? Where is the line to be rationally drawn?


Forgive my ignorance but why's that? Are all our natural instincts wrong - is that what you're saying?

Perhaps "wrong" is not quite the right word here...inadequate would be a better choice. We are not "animals in the jungle" any more and haven't been for some time; animal instincts, for the most part, are just not very useful any longer. Rational thought works better.


A universal sense of right and wrong is imprinted on all of us with a conscience...

Now this is just fantasy. Morality is indeed "imprinted" but it differs in every culture and in every form of class society.


...only the right of the parent to use as a last resort one firm hand across the backside after repeated warnings and explanation delivered not with anger but love...

It doesn't "sound so bad" with all the lighting and makeup...but it still sucks if you're the one getting hit.

The only people I've ever hit were people who attacked me and who I very much wanted to hurt...badly.

I seem to be unable to grasp the subtlety of hitting people that you claim you "love".

It doesn't make sense.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

I will never know.

But, for what it's worth, I do seem to get along with kids better than many.

This is off-topic, but Ralph Waldo Emerson said one of the best things of all time: "When I was thirteen years old, my Uncle Samuel Ripley one day asked me, 'How it is, Ralph, that all the boys dislike you and quarrel with you, whilst the grown people are fond of you?' Now I am thirty-six and the fact is reversed- the old people suspect and dislike me, and the young love me."


That's an extremely weak argument. That's like capitalists saying that Nazis were Communist because they had healthcare.

Don't draw tangential comparisons like that. It's unbecoming.

What? His idea of raising children would work, but it really scares me a little. The family is a slightly unnatural institution, but maybe the Spartan's way of doing it was healthier than this...


Yes, as it happens, I do "condone" capital punishment under several circumstances...grevious bodily harm to children being one of them.

Believe it or not, I'm of the view that execution is actually more humane than lengthy imprisonment.

Now let's get to that "loving parent". I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed many of them over the last half-century or so. I know they exist...indeed, I know one couple very well who are absolutely incredible with their 14-month-old toddler--he's a really lucky kid and, believe me, it shows.

I would be shocked to hear a harsh word from them toward their little one...much less a blow.

Now, how typical is that couple? Well, older kids and young adults will often, in the course of conversation, tell you stories of their childhood. I've never heard any good ones...in perhaps hundreds of such conversations. And a few I've heard have been utterly horrifying.

So I trust you will understand why I regard your hypothetical "loving parent" with considerable skepticism. It mostly appears to me to be a self-justifying mythology, rather like a "benevolent" despotism or a "loving" "God".

Would you suggest, then, that the family unit as a system works on the whole?




I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not attempting to excuse fascists from responsibility for their choices. What I'm suggesting is that violence against children "predisposes" them in later years to being receptive to fascist ideology or portions thereof.

If that hypothesis is wrong, then some other explanation must be found. Are some people "born fascists"? Is there a gene-complex that dictates political opinions? That seems much more far-fetched than what I propose.


I still disagree here. I think the environment the child is brought up in and what he learns for himself later on dictate all of what political alliance they side with. I think a kid who is spanked is just as likely to go one way as she is the other.



Now this is just fantasy. Morality is indeed "imprinted" but it differs in every culture and in every form of class society.

What about the Conscious Collective?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, I don't think that the needs of children and the responsibility of parents to ensure those needs should be put an end to just because of some parents who are abusive of their children and/or their power.

I've been around considerably less than you have, and I have heard a few stories of kids stepping on nails.

[Rastafari]

We hear about kids stepping on nails all the time here, but nobody wears shoes in Kentucky, so...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If a kid steps on a nail with the amount of weight of a regular step, I imagine that a shoe will most likely do little to prevent the penetration of the nail.

[redstar2000]

Redstar, I don't think that the needs of children and the responsibility of parents to ensure those needs should be put an end to just because of some parents who are abusive of their children and/or their power.


Would you suggest, then, that the family unit as a system works on the whole?

That's really what is at the core of this discussion, isn't it? I was wondering it it would emerge...and it did.

The family is the most ancient of human institutions...indeed, it may have arisen among proto-humans long before the power of speech or the use of fire.

So, it has "worked" for perhaps more than a million years. It has kept enough children alive long enough to mother and father the next generation.

Is that "good enough", now?

And for the centuries and millennia to come?

My crystal ball is no better than yours, of course. But we have seen, even in our own lifetimes, that people have begun to develop expectations that are very different from anything seen in recorded history before...a kind of prelude, if you will, to communist society (if Marx was right).

The rise of capitalism generated, as a by-product, a kind of philosophical/ideological acid that has eaten away at and continues to eat away at all forms of pre-capitalist thought and pre-capitalist institutions...including the family.

When profit is the only goal of human activity, there is no "room" left for anything else.

Of course, there is still money to be made from the family...as from racism and nationalism and religion, etc. Capitalism still supports these institutions...but the ideological justification for them has withered away.

You cannot rationally "justify" the family unit any more than you can "justify" the divine right of kings or the validity of revelation. The traditional arguments in favor of those ideas have "melted into air" and vanished.

What's left, as far as ordinary people are concerned?

Well, a "good family" provides a lot of emotional rewards, mutual support, reinforcement of self-esteem, etc. Children raised in such an atmosphere are almost certain to thrive and to try to recreate such families when they grow up.

And then there's the downside...the "dysfunctional family" where everyone torments each other. Provided that conditions are not too harsh, kids can survive such an environment, but I think the cost is a heavy one...physically, mentally, and emotionally.

I repeat: cops, mercenaries, fascists, etc. have to come from somewhere. To suggest that it is a matter of chance is not a very satisfying explanation, nor do I find the idea that some people are "born evil" to be very attractive.

It could turn out that one or both of those hypotheses is the real explanation(s). But I don't think so.

As to the future, I expect that the "arguments" for violence against children will be repeatedly attacked in ever harsher terms...and that children themselves will internalize the conviction that violence against them is unacceptable under any circumstances.

I expect conservatives and reactionaries to howl with outrage at this attack on the "sacred authority" of parenthood. I expect them to lose!

I expect children who are still being raised in traditional ways to become more and more rebellious. When they grow up, more and more of them will be found among the most vigorous and vehement opponents of the family as an institution.

Eventually, most likely after the revolution, I would like to see an altogether new institution created for raising children from dysfunctional families. My idea is that kids--starting around age 7 or so--would have the option of moving out of a dysfunctional family altogether...living instead in some kind of collective with other kids and adults that genuinely like children.

I don't think it's necessary to "abolish the family" in some formal sense or by decree...and it would probably just make us look foolish. The "good" families would continue to exist...perhaps forever.

But the bad ones would have a very short life-span...not because we would have to "take away" the kids, but because the kids would know they have the right to leave and would exercise that right.

Why should kids have to live in shit simply because they were born to assholes?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Danton]

If that hypothesis is wrong, then some other explanation must be found. Are some people "born fascists"? Is there a gene-complex that dictates political opinions? That seems much more far-fetched than what I propose.

Well there is no simple answer is there? It 's a myriad chain of events and thoughts and external influences and of course choices.. I dont beleive a mathmatical equation or psychological recipe exists for any political persuasion..

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, do you think that children who are forced to do certain things by their parents should be encouraged to leave home?
By this I mean the things that you seem to have condemned the forcing of. Like going to school, eating, respecting others, going to the doctor for a check-up, etc.
I also recall that you said that respect for parents is actualy submition to their power. I mean basic respect, like not kicking your sister, for example.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 04:26 PM
Redstar, do you think that children who are forced to do certain things by their parents should be encouraged to leave home?

By this I mean the things that you seem to have condemned the forcing of. Like going to school, eating, respecting others, going to the doctor for a check-up, etc.
I also recall that you said that respect for parents is actualy submition to their power. I mean basic respect, like not kicking your sister, for example.
"Forcing" people to do things that they don't want to do is, in general, a bad idea.

There may be specific circumstances that would provide specific and limited exceptions to that principle.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's a matter of "encouraging" children to leave home; I propose making the option available and a matter of public knowledge...kids will decide if they want to leave or not.

Realistically, I would expect very few 7-year-olds to leave, more 8-year-olds, still more 9-year-olds, etc.

In absolute numbers, who knows? If those who defend traditional parenting on this board are right, then the total numbers will be fairly small.

And you also have to factor in the effect that parents will know that this alternative exists...and if they want their kids around, will perforce tread lightly lest they lose them.

Meanwhile, vc, don't kick your sister!

That's misogynist!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

what are your views on abortion and "pre-marital" sex?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't have a sister.

And I know you're talking to redstar, but I think that pre-marital sex is just as fine as post-marital sex.
And abortions ought to be available at any stage in development. :)

[Rastafari]

I don't have a sister.

If things keep going the way they are now, I won't either, by Christmas.

:(

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What?? :huh:

[Rastafari]

long story-I'm sorry

but here I go turning this into Chit-Chat...

[apathy maybe]

First I must admit that I didn't read all that thread.

Do parents still worry about kids "stepping on a nail"? Really?

I suppose it must happen on occasion...though I have never heard of a real-life example.
Just one thing I picked up, I have not only stepped on a nail but also whacked my hand on a nail while running past a shed. It does happen. Admittedly I knew my parents knew what was best for me.


I have been raised by loving R Catholic parents who love me and care for me etc. I have 3 older siblings (them Catholics, they breed like rabbits).

Most of the time they disciplined us by use of the use of voice. But very occasionally we got spanked. Not even once or twice a month. We never got whacked on the head, always on our butts. Never with a belt, always the hand.

No doubt my parents are good enough at parenting to be able to bring us up with out resorting to it at all. But it makes the job so much easier if you can threaten the kid with a whack if they don't do something. Most of the time we knew they wouldn't unless we really pushed it. We hardly ever did.

As to parents who belt their kids all the time, as has been said, it leads to abusive adults. But that is no reason to outlaw spanking, just a reason to make parenting courses compulsory, or even better, create a society where it wouldn't happen. It's this bloody capitalism that does it (one reason anyway).

[Ernestocheguevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:37 AM

Children should be treated as equals.

You can't treat children as equals because well... they are children. I think that discpline is neccessary. A swat to the bottom will correct a small child while not doing any harm. There is a difference between discipline and abuse.

Peace
I agree, beating a child literally within an inch of there life breeds hate and violence, but not always, I suggest you all read 'The Kid' by Kevin Lewis a fantastic book which tells of a kid (the author) who was brutally beaten and treated like shit but still did okay for himself, although what he has to live with in his own mind is beyond comprehension!!

Discipline is letting a child know right from wrong and at an early age there level of understanding is too little to deal with words, so a smack on there bum or hand that pains them not bruises them can let them know they have wronged.

The Kid-Kevin Lewis (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071814662X/qid=1069178613/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/202-7518069-2913439)

[Anarchist Freedom]

heres the way i see it i know were all very liberal and such but this is your child and well if you dont want your child to be a little horse shit disrespecter you have to come down a bit its just been that way, unless your name was sunshine and your parents were hippies( thats another stories in its self). you see i dont fear my parents i respect them and will obey them im not a ignorant shit who is a dumbass i know what to do when im told(except be a stupid rebulican) 8'( you see maybe spanking your kid , or hitting me upside the head when the kid is being a brat obnoxious or just plain stupid then the cracking comes down...

so in essence yes its fine as long as it isnt child abuse and a bunch of liberals break down the door calling it child abuse( no offense to liberals or myself)



:che:

[Anarchist Freedom]

and you see children cant be treated as equals you people sometimes dont get it(nothing personal) ok soo i understand marxism preaches equality but this one shouldnt and cant be fuffilled. you see if you child was treated the same as you were then why should he needs parents he can make his own decisons pay the bills get a job and pay for your house. the kid has to live under the parent because the parent teaches the kid things along the what to and not to do soo enough tree hugging and complaining

i get hit upside the head if i fuck up i dont care im not gunna become a malicous abuser or anything cmon relax people and dont call parents facist!



:che:

[truthaddict11]

this thread is starting to disgust me, as someone who was beat i find it apauling people(that call themselves communisnts and socialists) would be saying that children need to be hit in order to "teach" them "right" from "wrong". Just as a slave owner would beat and kill slaves to "teach" the others or how bosses killed workers to "teach" the others a lesson. or the uses of threats of violence. and whoever said children arent equals is completly stupid why shouldnt they be treated as equals because they are younger? they are your property? i dont see any logic in the exclamation you gave

[redstar2000]

But it makes the job so much easier if you can threaten the kid with a whack if they don't do something.


Discipline is letting a child know right from wrong and at an early age their level of understanding is too little to deal with words, so a smack on their bum or hand that pains them, not bruises them, can let them know they have wronged.


...but this is your child and well if you don't want your child to be a little horse shit disrespecter, you have to come down a bit; its just been that way...


...the kid has to live under the parent because the parent teaches the kid things along the what to and not to do, so enough tree hugging and complaining.

This stupid crap has already been responded to earlier in the thread.

Briefly, I did point out in a much earlier post that hitting kids is a "convenient short-cut" to getting them to obey.

The fact that small children have a limited vocabulary does not excuse your failure to appeal to it. Indeed, a parent who resorts to violence has an even more limited vocabulary...obviously!

"Horse shit disrespecter"? That's not "respect" you're trying for, it's fear.

And "it's just been that way"? What a terrific excuse! Class society has "just been that way" for all of recorded history.

Guess by that logic, we should just try to improve capitalism.(!)

But this one is really the best of all: "so enough tree hugging and complaining".

Why don't you shove a tree up your fascist ass, you fake leftist?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

I think that if kids are thaught things by force they will become dependants on every form of authority when they are grown up. And that goes against my ideals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think I'm going to scream.

In rage.

Don't any of you barbaric idiots get it?
When you hit someone, whatever age they are, it hurts. No kid likes pain.
Slapping them anywhere will hurt. A kid's parent is supposed to protect them from pain, not to inflict it
on them. Would you lash your child with a whip or thrash them with birch? probably not, but you still think slapping them is OK? NO!
When I was 7-8, my stepfather used to hit me and occasionally kicked me. Not out of love, but out of anger because he could not get me to behave the way he wanted me to.
I lived in fear at that time, he was bigger than me, I had no clue what to do if he decided to hit me harder or even kill me. Yes, parents used to be able to kill their disobedient children, it was in fact a
God given right!

Thankfully he no longer hits me, probably because I'm 6'3" and he's 5'8".

If he hits me again, I'll hit back.

[Ernestocheguevara]

Just out of interest, out of those who oppose smacking, not beating that's just cowardice!!, I mean a correcting tap, how many of you are parents???

[Rastafari]

very few people, if any, who have posted so far here are parents...

[truthaddict11]

so what? does it matter if you are a parent or not to think that spanking is wrong?

[Rastafari]

I don't really think it matters either way, no.

[Eastside Revolt]

The whole entire philisophical argument around "disciplining childeren" has been played-out to death, in this thread.

Rasta, were are not gonna change you're mind on this, and I sure as hell don't hope to. I'll agree with you that perents often need to do a better job disciplining their childeren, but I garantee you it has nothing to do with using physical force.

Knowing the cold mean shithead my dad was, i refuse to discipline my childeren in this way. I know in my heart that in my genes I don't have the right temperment to deal with loved ones in that manner, I would never attempt to inflict verbal or physical pain on someone I care for. I hope you can be sure about yourself.

[BuyOurEverything]

I see the reason that most people defend hitting their kids is that they want to teach their kids right from wrong. I think that if you can't actually explain why something is wrong to a kid and defend your position, you really shouldn't be telling them it's wrong at all. Having a rational discussion with the kid is a much better way to fix these problems, this is what my parents did with me and it worked fine. Another reason I hear people defending this is that children need to learn respect for their parents. I completely oppose this. Parents must earn the respect of their children like everyone else. Most parents would want their children to respect their friends but if they found out that their kid's friend had smacked their ass to teach them some respect, they would be quite upset. The fact that a kid is made up of your genetic material doesn't give you any special privelidge.

And for the record, I too stepped on a rusty nail when I was a kid. It sucked. Nails hurt like motherfuckers.

[Blackberry]

International No-Smacking Day. (http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/parents/smacking.html)

[FabFabian]

If I hit someone in the street, I will be charged with assault. If that someone is a child that I am the guardian of it is called "correction". Yeah, right...more like lazy parenting.