God Bless, Relic! Sounds like you tried the non-violent means of child-rearing in retaliation for your own bad experiences.. and it sounds like it worked, too! :D

I failed miserably in my previous marriage. I am truly fortunate that I was able to have another opportunity.

I noticed the term "argument" being used several times.

Could we all treat this as a <font color=white>sharing</font> session where we relate experiences and views instead? The reason why I say this is that parenting is based on one's values, which are never easily changed by others. It will be a bonus if others do decide to consider the alternatives we offer, but there is no need to get too defensive over our points [img]smile.gif[/img]

damn, this thread came a long way since i last checked. MagiK, for what it's worth, i think you are right.

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MagiK:
[qb]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick: [qb] qb]"Proper child rearing" is subjective, but I shall follow the thinking for now. ;) Yes, in an ideal world a parent wouldn't be angry with their childs misbehaviour and the annoyances they bring. They also wouldn't have the pressures of career or marriage simmering under the surface. Yes, in an ideal world, a parent would give a single cold smack, hard enough to reprimand, yet light enough to show love and restraint. But this is not an ideal world. It is too easy to cross the line when physicality is used in conjunction with stress and anger. The question of age is another variable. For a very young child a smack may be the answer, but when do you stop? When they understand words? When they understand reason? When they are able to run away? When they are able to hit back? Also, does a father smack his son, and not his daughter? Sexism? Inequality? Potential sibling resentment? An open door for a sister to get their brother hit? Far better IMO to have a blanket "no smacking" policy, for we do not live in an ideal world. It is too easy to cross a line. The slogans that pushed the attitude: "It's never, ever acceptable to hit a woman" have done much to reduce male to female spousal abuse. It seems we have a way to go in female to male spousal abuse, and parent to child abuse. If a line is in danger of being crossed, remove it altogether. How about this? It is never, ever acceptable to hit a human.

Yorick this is hard for me to say but I actually ag...agre...agree with you on something ;) Whew! there I got it out.

[ 05-18-2002, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

Wow...you guys can sure talk up a storm. Imagine what you could do with some real material.

Other than to reinforce what Mouse said earlier about keeping personal insults away (which everyone has done to their credit as far as I can see) you guys are doing much better than the last time I had to post here.

Majik - I appreciate your more "politically correct" stance as you call it - though I prefer to call it showing more courtesy to others. [img]smile.gif[/img] The discussion has continued in a much more positive tone since. Thanks, mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

An incredible array of ideas and experiences, but I have read the entire thing (gasp, wheeze, pant:) )
Other than tangentially, I have found nothing that 'matches' the situation I have with Amanda, and the vast differences in her mother's house and mine, and the philosophy vs. practice of childrearing that has destroyed half of Amanda's cousins.
Destroyed means being in a federal prison for life plus 100 years,2)
Living as a shell of a human being whose sole purpose upon gaining conciousness is to ingest as many mind-altering substances as possible in order to reverse that.
Flunking out of college the first term due to binge-drinking induced anonymous pregnancy - she still has no idea who the father is, and gave up after six (6!) court-ordered tests of the most likely proved fruitless.
A runaway who's location and life are still unknown 7 years later.

These are the stories of half of Amanda's cousins. This is the result of inattentive, sporadic parenting based on the view of being your kid's "buddy", "friend", or "pal", worrying more about being liked by your kid than parenting them with clearly defined rules that are consistently taught by example and deed more than just nagging word from upon hypocritical high.

What has become of those children is the nightmare of any parent, and the bottomless source of my determination in pursuing the custody battle that resembled Sherman's march to Atlanta sometimes.

JOHN D. HARRIS FOR PRESIDENTE FOR LIFE! (sorry, CAPS LOCK KING made me do it... :D ) JD, can I name you gaurdian in absentia for my daughter should my sister get too close to the action? The points you made and the why thereofs discipline are mine as well.
The.Relic, we have been thru alot, and your example has the same thing JDH did in his, consistent adherence to the rules of behaviour, enforced every time, not just when you feel like exerting yourself.

It is the inconsistent application of rules subject to situational ethics and 'levels' of right or wrong children grow up with that ruins them as people. When children learn that they must not complete a week of being grounded past the time it becomes convenient for the parent to let them stay at a friend's house so they can go out to the bar and party, why should they have any fear of consequences? They did what they wanted, and it really wasn't that bad after all....and so is the promise of another unique and priceless life that could have brightened others slowly replaced by a caricature of humanity leaving only pain and sadness in it's wake. :(