Subject:
|
Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:26:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
704 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> > > Punishment doesn't teach what the punisher normally expects. It merely
> > teaches the recipient to avoid being caught. It also creates a divide
> > between the authority and the punished, rather than bringing them together
> > team-wise.
> >
> > That's true, but there's a limit to that.
>
> Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some
> pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And
> simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.)
You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line
of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature
impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between
"too much," "too little," and "enough." The fact that Shiri cannot put
forth such an irrefutable yardstick does not mean that no measurement can be
made, even if it's a fundamentally grey measurement.
> > At some point you just *can't* let a kid not have any bad effect to his
> > wrong actions.
>
> It sounds like you think I'm advocating shielding children from the natural
> consequences of their actions. I am not. Most parents do that. I sometimes
> do it on impulse, but when life or limb is not at stake, letting your kids
> learn the cause and effect is the way to go.
In one stroke you're judging "most parents" and declaring the proper "way
to go" re: child rearing. You're also deliberately mis-characterizing
Shiri's assertion; she's not suggesting that you take no action to protect
your children--she's saying (quite rightly) that there are lessons to be
learned that don't have a tangible or demonstrable (to a young child)
consequence, and these lessons may still (and quite often do) entail "right"
and "wrong." Are they, because they aren't "life or limb," somehow outside
of your notion of which lessons a child must learn? Even the "life or limb"
distinction is arbitrary--how can you decide suddenly that some wrong action
requires your intervention, while other wrong actions will just sort
themselves out?
We're not talking about 10 and 12 year-olds here--we're discussing younger
children prior to the onset of formal operational reasoning.
> > When a kid crosses that line, I think it is well and fair to give him/her a
> > strict disciplinary action.
>
> Why? Why does a child (what ages are we talking about, btw?) need authority
> that you and I do not?
Are you kidding? By asking the question, you're stating outright that a
child is fully accountable for his actions and competent to make decisions
regarding those actions and their consequences. This simply isn't true--not
to casual observation, close examination, cultural history, or legal
precedent. What is your evidence (apparently uniquely yours) that children
require no greater authority than adults?
> > I would say "no TV for the day" or something of the sort;
>
> No TV for the day is an absolutely fabulous consequence for breaking the TV.
> What it has got to do with mouthing off, I have no idea.
Just for clarification, are you of the eye-for-an-eye school of
discipline? Do you, for example, maintain that every wrong action by a
child should entail no consequences other than those directly caused by the
action? So if your child burns the house down, you'll take no other action
than to point out to the child that he/she is now without a house?
> > As a kid I received the smack, once in a long time. I was slapped on
> > the cheek *once*, when I hit my mother at the age of 12, and believe me, it
> > only hurt for a little bit, but it left a very strong don't-cross-that-line
> > impression.
>
> What it taught you is that if you strike someone you are likely to be whacked
> back (I consider that a good and just repercussion) and that the person in the
> world who is supposed to love and care for you above all else is willing to
> hurt you in order to force your compliance with their own agenda (I consider
> that bad).
Spoken like a spin-master. The lesson, as you spin it above, is what you
as an adult have retroactively decided to infer about the lessons you have
retroactively decided that you learned as a child. I refuse to accept that
you (or any of us) as a child possessed the abstract reasoning skills to
think in terms of agendas and power structures. Further, you underestimate
children's resilience if you think that a smack on the butt will permanently
scar that child's psyche and parental relationship.
On the other hand, standing by while a child commits a wrong action is a
fantastic way for the parent to tell that child that his/her actions aren't
sufficiently important for the parent to intervene or take notice.
> > Now I think my mother was extremely justified, even though at
> > the time I was really upset.
>
> I think there are negative consequences to physical discipline even when it is
> justified. I agree that that case may have been justified, but possibly not
> the _best_ solution.
If you see your child shoplifting a pack of gum, are you going to report
your child to the store manager and have your child jailed overnight? I
know you have certain concepts of how "the universe" works things out, but
in reality, society (the only "universe" that matters to the child) jails
shoplifters or slaps them with a fine.
> > > But I didn't say they could. And punishing them doesn't make them do so
> > > either (since we both agree that they can't). Why not just work with their
> > > limitations by not expecting the impossible?
> >
> > I don't think Dave *is* expecting the impossible. He is simply realizing (if
> > I read him correctly) that a punishment leaves a certain impression on a
> > child that no discussion can.
>
> As I suggested above, I agree. It leaves the "impression" that the adults in
> their life are willing to use any tools necessary to coerce the child into
> jumping through the hoops that the parent finds valuable rather than helping
> the child to figure out what _they_ think is important and then helping them
> achieve along those lines.
And now your mis-characterize my statement, too. A child who is smacked
on the butt does not--even at a non-verbal level--possess the abstract
reasoning skill to consider the role of the hegemonic adult ruling class in
the day-to-day struggles of the oppressed sandbox crowd. Nowhere have I
suggested the "any tools necessary" nonsense that you assert; you are
equating a single, open-handed smack on the butt with lifelong, ritualized,
systematic torture.
Why, I wonder, do you rear your children at all? Why not turn them loose
in society and let them figure it out for themselves, since--you assert--the
universe has its concept of how discipline is to be acquired?
> What I don't get is Dave's suggested the punishment is needed because a child
> isn't fully able to abstract about morals, or whatever. I'm not sure how that
> has any bearing on the use of punishment if we all agree that punishing them
> isn't going to improve their morals, or whatever. I guess if all you care
> about is behavior modification rather than nurturing, punishment is an
> adequate tool.
Since morality is a learned behavior with a basis in biology, it is not
inappropriate (indeed, it is necessary) for a parent to instruct the child
in lessons of morality. If at a young age the child is unable to reason
abstractly but *is* able to respond to stimulus/response relationships, it
is not inappropriate (indeed, it is necessary) for the parent to use
non-abstract methods to form the basics of a system of right and wrong.
Thereafter, a more complex, abstract associative structure can supplant or
complement the basic system.
Once again, I take issue with your deliberate mis-characterization of my
statements.
> But maybe you shouldn't have kids.
Given how disaffected and out-of-touch-with-reality you have consistently
demonstrated your spare-the-rod philosophies to be, I would suggest that not
only should you not have kids, but perhaps you should return any that you
have already. In any case, don't you dare presume to judge me--or anyone
else--simply because our notions of parenting don't coincide with your odd
conceptions.
So, to sum up: You mis-characterize Shiri's statments and mine, you
presume to define the proper way that all children should be brought up, you
ignore the facts of child psychological development, and then you presume to
judge the propriety of my choice to have children. Did I miss anything?
I don't care to be baselessly insulted by you, so I leave you to your
misguided theories of child-coddling.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
