Parenting Philosophies/The Role of Children In Society

[Charmed Justice]

I think perhaps the theory that there are no significant changes in the brain after four years of age is based on obsolete data.

The newer theory concerning brain development is that neurogenesis happens throughout the life cycle, and does not end at age 25. The frontal lobe is now said to be complete at 25, but then of course, we go through a a period of sharp mental decline after a certain time in our development.

If we hit as a means of directing those with a limited ability to reason(by comparison), I wonder the rationale for ending this means of direction prior to any age leading up to complete maturity.

 

[cafe]

The newer theory concerning brain development is that neurogenesis happens throughout the life cycle, and does not end at age 25. The frontal lobe is now said to be complete at 25, but then of course, we go through a a period of sharp mental decline after a certain time in our development.

If we hit as a means of directing those with a limited ability to reason(by comparison), I wonder the rationale for ending this means of direction prior to any age leading up to complete maturity.

When it ceases to be effective or other means have become more effective seems logical to me.

I think it is great that families parent creatively and come up with less expedient solutions. I also think spanking can be a good method when used with wisdom and restraint.

I'm sorry for what you experienced as a child. My own experience was very different and the wise and loving way my mother disciplined me (including the occasional spanking) was not among the things I feel she did poorly (and believe me, there are some).

I know that is difficult for you to accept and that you are inclined to invalidate such perceptions . . . there's really no way to communicate effectively under those circumstances.

Edit: Or rather, I'm not quite sure how to do so.

 

[Mole]

+1 And Alice Miller has dug very deeply into the topics of mob violence and violence in general, and childhood shame, punishment, and spanking. Alice Miller: The Roots of Violence - The Natural Child Project

Yes, read Alice Miller and weep. And if you have any tears left, read, "The Foundations of Psychohistory", by Lloyd Demause.

 

[Charmed Justice]

When it ceases to be effective or other means have become more effective seems logical to me.

I know that is difficult for you to accept and that you are inclined to invalidate such perceptions . . . there's really no way to communicate effectively under those circumstances.

Edit: Or rather, I'm not quite sure how to do so.

Actually, it isn't difficult for me to accept your viewpoint, because I held the same one until about 8 or so years ago. And trust me, nobody could have told me differently. There were many things that I had to complain about, but being spanked wasn't one of them.

My childhood was likely little different than most. I was never "beaten", or slammed up against walls, or any of that. For the most part, I was "control" spanked, which is what is popular when people advocate spanking. My mother cooled herself off, explained what I did "wrong", and then hit me about 4 times with either a wooden paddle, or a belt. I was also paddled twice at school in the same manner.

I was not abused by the standard definition in the United States, but my perceptions of what occured then have changed(from acceptance to rejection), and I have been able to reach deeply and acknowledge the pain and hurt that existed back then(and the denial). I couldn't do that until fairly recently.

Yes, read Alice Miller and weep. And if you have any tears left, read, "The Foundations of Psychohistory", by Lloyd Demause.

I did weep, indeed. I have so many of her books now. Demause I haven't read yet(headed to Amazon.com now), but "Parenting from the Inside Out" is great for people who have children and wish to slay their own dragons prior to toe-the-line that society has carved out for them, insofar as childrearing goes.

 

[cafe]

Actually, it isn't difficult for me to accept your viewpoint, because I held the same one until about 8 or so years ago. And trust me, nobody could have told me differently. There were many things that I had to complain about, but being spanked wasn't one of them.

My childhood was likely little different than most. I was never "beaten", or slammed up against walls, or any of that. For the most part, I was "control" spanked, which is what is popular when people advocate spanking. My mother cooled herself off, explained what I did "wrong", and then hit me about 4 times with either a wooden paddle, or a belt. I was also paddled twice at school in the same manner.

I was not abused by the standard definition in the United States, but my perceptions of what occured then have changed(from acceptance to rejection), and I have been able to reach deeply and acknowledge the pain and hurt that existed back then(and the denial). I couldn't do that until fairly recently.

Do you believe it is possible that someone could be okay with having been spanked and not be in denial and/or not have repressed pain, etc?

 

[Wiley45]

Growing up, all 3 children in my household were spanked. I wasn't spanked as much as my siblings because my parents could give me one disapproving look and I'd melt into guilt and apology, but I definitely got my share of spankings.

My parents had a set number of swats, always tried to cool off before spanking if they were angry, and hugged and prayed with us afterward. We also got warnings before spankings and were only spanked for direct disobedience so we didn't feel confused or surprised.

I don't recall feeling unloved, shamed or abused. I have struggled with depression my entire adult life, but I don't know that it's possible to figure out exactly why or trace it back to something like spanking.

I've chosen not to spank my son. I take a lot of flack for it, since I'm the only one in my group of friends and family who doesn't spank, and they worry my son will be out of control. They're adamant that their way is the only one that works. I've tried to read books and materials, and use my common sense to figure out a plan that doesn't include physical violence.

I do use short time-outs to corral disruptive or defiant behavior, since my son persistently pushes boundaries and needs to know certain things will not be tolerated. As he gets older, we can reason, but sometimes he has needed a quick, concrete consequence for unacceptable behavior. I also try to make him aware of how his actions hurt others -- if he's stopped after hitting someone and can see how they're upset, he feels bad, and I think that's positive. My goal is to avoid time outs as much as possible by anticipating his actions ahead of time and cutting off problems before they begin.

I also make a point to respect my son, asking him to do things with a "please" and "thank you," just as I would want to be asked. I try to be cheerful about requests, though I'm still working on that. I don't like people barking commands at children, and I've also noticed my son repeating phrases the way he's heard me say them. Sometimes I think, "Wow, that sounds very rude when it's repeated back to me," and I change my way of speaking to him the next time. My parents would say that a child can't talk to a parent in the same way a parent talks to a child, but I disagree. I expect my son to listen and cooperate, but I still think he's a person who deserves to be spoken to respectfully. Instead of saying, "Cut it out! You don't talk to your parents that way!" I say, "We don't talk to people that way." Not just parents, but people in general deserve respect. Period.

My parents believed you must break a child's will, but I have learned that most of the discipline problems I've faced are due to my own shortcomings. When I have the patience to stay calm, the foresight to be one step ahead of my son, and the focus to tune into him and get on his thought level, things tend to go very smoothly. When I don't leave myself enough time, expect my son to think and act like me, don't give him challenges to keep him occupied, etc. then I run into trouble and lose patience.

 

[FDG]

I was spanked extremely rarely, I suppose because it did not work. My mother tells me that the rare times she tried to spank me (I was usually a wise-obedient-indipendent kid 95 percent of the time), I would try to throw chairs at my parents, bite them in the arms and neck, try to put fingers in their eyes, retaliate for days after a single spanking. I feel a little bit of shame when they tell me this, but I can see how I just saw spanking as the same thing as being hit by another kid and thus I had to protect myself.

 

[Ivy]

Part of the reason I don't spank is that I was a nanny for many years before I was a parent, and I had to manage those kids' behavior without spanking them. So I had a pretty good repertoire coming into parenting, and saw no reason to add spanking to it. The handful of times I've spanked my own kids have been when my own coping mechanisms failed; when the stress of parenting got to me, and I backed myself into a corner.

At the same time, I was spanked (rarely) and not only do I not think my parents were abusers, I know they weren't. They were, and are, supportive, loving, and healthy. They simply had a meme in their repertoire, one they picked up from the previous generation, and one I have chosen not to continue in my generation. Even though I've chosen not to spank my own children, and see the times that I have as personal failings, doesn't mean I can superimpose that onto my family of origin or any other family.

It would be helpful if people acknowledged that coming to a realization about yourself, your childhood, and your parenting preferences doesn't mean you're "further along" than someone who hasn't had that realization, EVEN IF the way they feel now is the way you felt before your epiphany.

 

[Wiley45]

Part of the reason I don't spank is that I was a nanny for many years before I was a parent, and I had to manage those kids' behavior without spanking them.

Yes, my best friend worked in daycare for a few years and I saw how they learned to keep things running smoothly without spanking, so I knew there must be a way to do that at home.

 

[Charmed Justice]

Do you believe it is possible that someone could be okay with having been spanked and not be in denial and/or not have repressed pain, etc?

Not too sure. I'm pretty convinced of what I've read, as it comes from a multitude of sources and has been thoroughly researched for nearly decades now. I have spent nearly a decade reading accounts of people who have eventually had the "epiphany". As psychology is an ever evolving field, in my mind, I do realize that the possibility exist that all the data, and the research is completely wrong. I also accept that human beings are complex, and we may never know everything. There could be a small group of people who do not have repressed pain. But the biggest indicator that spanking has affected someone in a deep way is that they do it themselves. It's almost like smoking. You may know that it's harmful to your health, but if you grew up in a smoking family, the likelihood of you smoking(irrespective of the consequences) is highly increased.

I have learned that most of the discipline problems I've faced are due to my own shortcomings. When I have the patience to stay calm, the foresight to be one step ahead of my son, and the focus to tune into him and get on his thought level, things tend to go very smoothly. When I don't leave myself enough time, expect my son to think and act like me, don't give him challenges to keep him occupied, etc. then I run into trouble and lose patience.

In my life, I have found the above to be so true. When I am having a breakdown in communication with mine, I look at myself. Most of the time I realize that his "attitude" and behavior is a result of our miscommunication. I put the responsibility of communicating clearly and effectively on myself, as the adult. I also put the responsibility of having creative, and non-violent means of communicating on myself as well. Whereas he cannot go to the library and read one of hundreds of different books on effective communication with children, I can.

I was spanked extremely rarely, I suppose because it did not work. My mother tells me that the rare times she tried to spank me (I was usually a wise-obedient-indipendent kid 95 percent of the time), I would try to throw chairs at my parents, bite them in the arms and neck, try to put fingers in their eyes, retaliate for days after a single spanking. I feel a little bit of shame when they tell me this, but I can see how I just saw spanking as the same thing as being hit by another kid and thus I had to protect myself.

Wow. I put a stop on my parents too, and I was also rarely spanked, but I remember every last hit and I remember my sentiments at the time as well. Keeping those things in mind prevents me from doing the same to my own, and having the research to back it up really keeps me in line.

 

[Cimarron]

The "other punishment" (non-spanking) aspect is intriguing me here.

I'd guess, from what you've said, that you wouldn't tell--suggesting an authoritative way--your children not to do that thing you don't approve of, but debate it with them and encourage them to think about it? How difficult is it for you, and how have you resolved it in the past? Just wondering.

 

[INTJ123]

The newer theory concerning brain development is that neurogenesis happens throughout the life cycle, and does not end at age 25. The frontal lobe is now said to be complete at 25, but then of course, we go through a a period of sharp mental decline after a certain time in our development.

If we hit as a means of directing those with a limited ability to reason(by comparison), I wonder the rationale for ending this means of direction prior to any age leading up to complete maturity.

oh yea I've heard that before, except they used a synthetic THC compund to stimulate the neurogenesis. Conclusion, smoking weed is good for your brain.

 

[Charmed Justice]

I'd guess, from what you've said, that you wouldn't tell--suggesting an authoritative way--your children not to do that thing you don't approve of, but debate it with them and encourage them to think about it? How does theory differ from practice here?

Well, for me, that would really depend on the circumstance. I do tell on a very rare occasion. My preference is for joint decision making though(familial cooperation), it's the standard and the norm in our house.

When I tell, they know the issue must be serious to me at the time. But even then, in reflection, I have found that often when I tell it's because I'm feeling like I personally am out of control. My kids have convinced me, at times, to turn my "tell" into a "request", or to drop the situation altogether when I realize that the issue isn't even that important to me.

That being said, there are times when I don't negotiate, and the opportunity for negotiation does not exist. Almost always the issue is safety in the aforementioned event. Taking classes in Non Violent Communication has helped me immensely; whereas about a year ago, I hit a communication slump for about 3-months and began questioning my ability to go on.

 

[cafe]

Not too sure. I'm pretty convinced of what I've read, as it comes from a multitude of sources and has been thoroughly researched for nearly decades now. I have spent nearly a decade reading accounts of people who have eventually had the "epiphany". As psychology is an ever evolving field, in my mind, I do realize that the possibility exist that all the data, and the research is completely wrong. I also accept that human beings are complex, and we may never know everything. There could be a small group of people who do not have repressed pain. But the biggest indicator that spanking has affected someone in a deep way is that they do it themselves. It's almost like smoking. You may know that it's harmful to your health, but if you grew up in a smoking family, the likelihood of you smoking(irrespective of the consequences) is highly increased.

So, essentially, you do find my position difficult to accept and you are invalidating it.

 

[lowtech redneck]

But the biggest indicator that spanking has affected someone in a deep way is that they do it themselves.

You're begging the question; that's only an indicator that people think it works, and that there is nothing abusive about it, based on their own evaluation of their personal experiences as well as their observations of other families. You might as well say that people who embrace any aspect of their parent's lifestyles (religion or lack thereof, loving turnip greens and hating brussel sprouts, enjoying baseball over football, etc.) or the norms of the broader community do so as the result of some repressed psychological trauma, rather than simple socialization.

 

[Charmed Justice]

So, essentially, you do find my position difficult to accept and you are invalidating it.

Invalidating your feelings about it, never. Or let me say, that is not my intention. I try my hardest to not invalidate feelings, and my mind remains open to the possibilities. That doesn't mean I hold no positions. I view spanking as more or less a sociological issue, and an issue of civil rights. It's not a personal issue for me when I talk about, and I realize most people do spank. It's the advocation of spanking that I'm arguing, or the minimization of its effects on a powerless child. Just as women are no longer believed to be "lunatics" ruled by the moon, and incapable of making rationale decisions; so too, I believe one day children will be proven to be just as worthy of having their bodies unpunished.

I'd also like to note that I see no difference in say, hitting a child, than I do hitting an adult. There are many women out in the world who minimize their husband's abuse of them("It was just a little smack", "He was just angry"), and go back, and then presumably move on..until the next time. Nonetheless, I could never honestly tell a woman who is "just being smacked" that I personally believe that the abuse is not working a number on her psyche. I don't think any legitimate psychologist could either. Could you? Even if you understood the woman's feelings? Even if it really was just a smack that didn't leave a mark? I couldn't, because even if the smack didn't hurt, it could not work on the women, if the threat of real violence did not exist in her head. Even the raising of a fist by a stronger man is a threat of violence considered to be psychological abuse.

If fear or pain were not the working components in spanking, then it could never be rendered anymore effective than say, a light tap to get the child's attention.

You're begging the question; that's only an indicator that people think it works, and that there is nothing abusive about it, based on their own evaluation of their personal experiences as well as their observations of other families. You might as well say that people who embrace any aspect of their parent's lifestyles (religion or lack thereof, loving turnip greens and hating brussel sprouts, enjoying baseball over football, etc.) or the norms of the broader community do so as the result of some repressed psychological trauma, rather than simple socialization.

I'm assuming that the continuation of a particular religion, or "love" of anything from childhood, would indicate that said thing was enjoyable. I could only be saying what you are implying, if I were also saying that children enjoy being spanked. There is also perhaps something to be said of a free thinking adult who dislikes or likes something, simply to mirror their parents. Couldn't that be an argument for many things evil, if there is an evil?

Spanking does work, if the goal of the parent is blind obedience and immediate control. But I would argue that most parents don't intend on raising blindly obedient children/adults who are easily swayed by threats of violence and domination(ie, bullied).

A number of countries, starting with Sweden in 1979, have banned corporal punishment for children. Those countries, and nearly all other countries in the industrialized world(if not all), have a lower homicide rate, suicide rate, infanticide rate, illicit drug use rate, prison population, and depression rate than ours, but we have and have had the highest rate of support for corporal punishment. Further, the U.S tops the list for school shootings and student killers, and I also believe for children who kill their parents as well as parents who kill their children. If I'm not correct, the United States also has the highest rate of children and adults using psychotropic medications. If spanking, which most of us use, really works, then why is our population so much more violent than others in the industrialized world who do not use spanking-or advocate it the way we do? Or in short, in the long run, what good has spanking done for our country or for us as individuals, that couldn't have been accomplished non-violently?

 

[cafe]

Invalidating your feelings about it, never. Or let me say, that is not my intention. I try my hardest to not invalidate feelings, and my mind remains open to the possibilities. That doesn't mean I hold no positions. I view spanking as more or less a sociological issue, and an issue of civil rights. It's not a personal issue for me when I talk about, and I realize most people do spank. It's the advocation of spanking that I'm arguing, or the minimization of its effects on a powerless child. Just as women are no longer believed to be "lunatics" ruled by the moon, and incapable of making rationale decisions; so too, I believe one day children will be proven to be just as worthy of having their bodies unpunished.

I'd also like to note that I see no difference in say, hitting a child, than I do hitting an adult. There are many women out in the world who minimize their husband's abuse of them("It was just a little smack", "He was just angry"), and go back, and then presumably move on..until the next time. Nonetheless, I could never honestly tell a woman who is "just being smacked" that I personally believe that the abuse is not working a number on her psyche. I don't think any legitimate psychologist could either. Could you? Even if you understood the woman's feelings? Even if it really was just a smack that didn't leave a mark? I couldn't, because even if the smack didn't hurt, it could not work on the women, if the threat of real violence did not exist in her head. Even the raising of a fist by a stronger man is a threat of violence considered to be psychological abuse.

If fear or pain were not the working components in spanking, then it could never be rendered anymore effective than say, a light tap to get the child's attention.

In a relationship between adults, where the people involved have chosen to be in the relationship and are consenting to the relationship and that type of coercion should not be going on.

However, coercion is innate to effective parenting. I know that's a strong word with negative connotations, but I think it is accurate. There are things that our children want to do that we do not let them do. There are things that, left to their own devices, they would not choose to do that we coerce them to do.

Small ones want to put unsafe things in their mouths, they want candy in the check-out line, they want to take toys from other children. Whether we reason with them, show disapproval for their actions, put them in time out, or give them a swat on the bum, we are coercing them. (If we were not coercing them, it would mean that they actually have a choice to stick the cigarette butt off the playground into their slobbery little maws or that they could actually have the pretty pink package of HubbaBubba at the grocery store.) We coerce them to behave in ways that will keep them safe and that are acceptable to the social group they will need to survive in.

Spanking is a blatant expression of that coercion. Yes we can use more subtle sanctions, but coercion is taking place. To me, it is disingenuous, unfair, and deceptive to pretend that it is not. Even words like "We don't do that" are a threat of sanctions translatable into "If you behave in that way, you are not part of us, you are an outsider. Possibly, you are defective for even wanting to do that."

It's not nice, but pretending that it is not the case does not really change the reality. I would rather be up front about my coercion. My attitude is "Yes, I am coercing you. Yes, it does indeed suck. Here is why I am coercing you to do this particular thing. You can cooperate or I can initiate sanctions."

If we are effective coercers, they will internalize the basic attitudes and behaviors that we are trying to instill and we can lay off stronger elements of coercion.

"Leading by example" is very important and other types of coercion likely will ultimately not be internalized if it is not used in conjunction with them, but it is still a type of social sanction -- the implication being that behaving in a way contrary to the way of the family will be met with disapproval. Think of the weight of that threat, especially if it is effective.

To me, a swat on the bum is a concrete expression of what is happening on a social/emotional level. The fact that it's a physical sanction instead of an emotional/social sanction does not make it more or less acceptable. It just makes people uncomfortable with the reality of what is actually taking place.

 

[Katsuni]

In response to Cafe and EnFpFer, I think the biggest thing here is to realize the difference in relationship.

As adults, yeu choose to associate with people intentionally. Yeu have yeur own views, and yeu are legally responsible for yeur own actions. It is assummed yeu know WTH yeu're doing, or at least have a vague clue.

Children? Their parents are legally obligated TO adjust their thinking to match that of their own or societies. Yeur whole purpose as a parent is to TEACH yeur children the difference from right and wrong, as abstract as those terms are. Yeu are SUPPOSED to force them to stop inappropriate behaviour, and encourage good behaviour, however those definitions apply to yeu as a person or to the culture yeu're in, as these don't always match up perfectly.

For example, were I to raise children, I would not force the sexuality message on them; some parents would literally disown their kids if they found out they were bi or gay/lesbian, which's ridiculous. On the other hand, yeu shouldn't encourage such either, don't try to make them to be something they aren't. If they are, then they are. Good for them, let them know they have every right to be and educate them about whot they're getting themselves into. If they are straight, then also good for them, there shouldn't be a difference here. Society, on the other hand, is still largely against such a concept, even in places where it's "legal" for same gender marriages, it can be an uphill battle still, and is still heavily viewed as offensive or insulting, or scarry for some bizzare reason. Just because it's "legal" doesn't mean that people aren't prejudiced against it still. The hyper-conservatives and fundamentalists didn't just magically disappear, they just didn't have a big enough vote is all. Yeu're still going to have to deal with them. But anyways, the point is that this is the kind of thing that should be taught in parenting, and it is yeur DUTY as a parent to at least go over the concept, regardless of yeur views on the matter, or the views of the society yeu live in. Yeu still need to teach yeur kids how to deal with these situations.

If yeu were dealing with yeur SO? NO. Yeu don't have the right to force them to believe anything, they are their own person, they are allowed to make their own decisions. If they're old enough to really take an SO seriously, then they're old enough to think for themselves of whot they want, and yeur place is to encourage them, not control them.

Children just aren't the same thing at all because the relationship is totally different, emotionally, legally, etc, it's just NOT the same thing as dealing with an adult.

So regardless of spanking or not, yeu will be using tools to force their mindset to match someone's ideal. Though to be perfectly blunt, I'd much rather teach them to think for themselves, rather than teach them to just listen to everything I say without regard for why. Understanding the reasoning behind a rule is far more important than just following the rule to the letter in my opinion, and I'd want to heavily encourage such if I ever have kids. I'd hope most others would do the same, rather than just forcing their own beliefs on their kids.

But anyways, that's another argument XD

 

[Charmed Justice]

In a relationship between adults, where the people involved have chosen to be in the relationship and are consenting to the relationship and that type of coercion should not be going on.

However, coercion is innate to effective parenting. I know that's a strong word with negative connotations, but I think it is accurate. There are things that our children want to do that we do not let them do. There are things that, left to their own devices, they would not choose to do that we coerce them to do.

Small ones want to put unsafe things in their mouths, they want candy in the check-out line, they want to take toys from other children. Whether we reason with them, show disapproval for their actions, put them in time out, or give them a swat on the bum, we are coercing them. (If we were not coercing them, it would mean that they actually have a choice to stick the cigarette butt off the playground into their slobbery little maws or that they could actually have the pretty pink package of HubbaBubba at the grocery store.) We coerce them to behave in ways that will keep them safe and that are acceptable to the social group they will need to survive in.

Spanking is a blatant expression of that coercion. Yes we can use more subtle sanctions, but coercion is taking place. To me, it is disingenuous, unfair, and deceptive to pretend that it is not. Even words like "We don't do that" are a threat of sanctions translatable into "If you behave in that way, you are not part of us, you are an outsider. Possibly, you are defective for even wanting to do that."

It's not nice, but pretending that it is not the case does not really change the reality. I would rather be up front about my coercion. My attitude is "Yes, I am coercing you. Yes, it does indeed suck. Here is why I am coercing you to do this particular thing. You can cooperate or I can initiate sanctions."

If we are effective coercers, they will internalize the basic attitudes and behaviors that we are trying to instill and we can lay off stronger elements of coercion.

"Leading by example" is very important and other types of coercion likely will ultimately not be internalized if it is not used in conjunction with them, but it is still a type of social sanction -- the implication being that behaving in a way contrary to the way of the family will be met with disapproval. Think of the weight of that threat, especially if it is effective.

To me, a swat on the bum is a concrete expression of what is happening on a social/emotional level. The fact that it's a physical sanction instead of an emotional/social sanction does not make it more or less acceptable. It just makes people uncomfortable with the reality of what is actually taking place.

So would you say that "Connection Parenting" or non-coercive parenting is ineffective? Even though I'm not Christian, I liken non-coercive parenting philosophies to how many Christians describe their faith. To say that a parent is non-coercive(from a philosophical and practical standpoint) is not to say that we have perfected, or will ever perfect, the act of non-coercion. It is not to say that our children wont have any problems, or that we wont have any problems with our children. It is simply to say that we advocate non-coercion, work towards it as the ideal, and see ourselves to be relying on complexes when we act in a coercive manner(which results in an apology, and an open effort to "do better"). This is much like how a Christian, who knows they will never be perfect(as they believe Christ is), would work towards being "Christ-like" and ask for forgiveness as they continually "sin".

So regardless of spanking or not, yeu will be using tools to force their mindset to match someone's ideal. Though to be perfectly blunt, I'd much rather teach them to think for themselves, rather than teach them to just listen to everything I say without regard for why. Understanding the reasoning behind a rule is far more important than just following the rule to the letter in my opinion, and I'd want to heavily encourage such if I ever have kids. I'd hope most others would do the same, rather than just forcing their own beliefs on their kids.

But anyways, that's another argument XD

There is a power difference between parent and child, and that power difference does make the relationship between an adult and child different than say, the relationship between two adults.

I do not agree that the power difference gives the adult the moral right or obligation to coerce their children, or more specifically, spank them. A white master(and actually, the entire free community) once had an obligation to control the black slave(adult or no). A man once had the obligation to control his adult woman. We take for granted that people who once were not considered equals, are now considered such, and therefore granted similar rights and privileges as whoever is currently dominant. It wasn't always that way.

I also don't believe, as a parent, that I am obligated to teach my children to "adjust their thinking to match that of their own("the parents") or societies." But as a parent, because my children often look to me to navigate the world around them, I inform them of my opinion of what I believe they should expect when they make xyz decision. Sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm wrong. If we raise our children to "fit in" with the society of today, they will be out of step with the society of tomorrow, stuck in ways that many people have long left behind.

My whole purpose as a parent is actually not to teach my kids "right" and "wrong", but to foster the continuation of the pro-social behavior they were born with. Children do pick up whatever norms exist in the different subsets of their society. They do that with or without coercion, just as they learn to walk without someone teaching them how.

 

[cafe]

So would you say that "Connection Parenting" or non-coercive parenting is ineffective? Even though I'm not Christian, I liken non-coercive parenting philosophies to how many Christians describe their faith. To say that a parent is non-coercive(from a philosophical and practical standpoint) is not to say that we have perfected, or will ever perfect, the act of non-coercion. It is not to say that our children wont have any problems, or that we wont have any problems with our children. It is simply to say that we advocate non-coercion, work towards it as the ideal, and see ourselves to be relying on complexes when we act in a coercive manner(which results in an apology, and an open effort to "do better"). This is much like how a Christian, who knows they will never be perfect(as they believe Christ is), would work towards being "Christ-like" and ask for forgiveness as they continually "sin".

No, I'm saying that it is also coercive, it is just a different method of coercion. The sanctions are just different because parents are pretending they are not coercing.

If it wasn't coercive, the children really would be free to do what they wanted with the natural consequences of their actions being the only consequences of their actions.