"Parenting Without Punishing"

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"Tori M." wrote in message
...
This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in
life.
If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences.

What you don't seem to realize is that eliminating punishment is not
eliminating consequences. In a school setting if a child does not do their
homework, they get a poor-- this is consequences. What is not necessary are
lectures, remaining after school, notes home to parents, meetings about what
a terrible child this is, etc. A simple statement from the teacher that
this child *WILL* receive a poor grade if this behavior continues, followed
by a poor grade is all that is necessary.

And what are the results of this philosophy? Do the students learned
more? Do the schools no longer need cops nor metal detectors?

In the home setting there are also consequences. If you spill your drink at
diner, you clean it up-- again, no lectures, or spankings or time in the
corner or restrictions are needed.

What if the children don't want to clean it up?

Doan
-------------
If you don't abuse them, they don't suffer your kind of emotional
and motivational distortion, and they naturally want to be nice
to people who have been nice to THEM!
Steve

Like you? :-)

Doan

Donna Metler wrote:

As I've stated, a teacher recieved a formal reprimand for requiring a group
of students clean up a mess (after they decided to shoot spitballs in the
library)-because that was degrading. So much for a logical conseqence.
--------------------
If they are to clean up, then provide the tools. IT IS degrading to
be made to pick them up by hand, and handling other people's spitballs
IS unsanitary and a violation of child safety regulations.


As far as grades go, grades are considered punitive by some parents too-so
much so that schools in some districts aren't supposed to post graded work,
honor rolls and the like.
------------------
Systematic humilation does not benefit students. The grades are still
there for evluation purposes. Grades SHOULD be absolutely private,
like medical records.


And sending homework home is asking to have
parents down your throat complaining that it's interfering with family time.
------------------
Families have so little time today with long travel times to decent
employment that this is understandable, the school day should be
lengthened and schools kept open for math and english exercises.


Requiring a child to complete unfinished homework at recess will have
parents complaining that it is unfair to require their child to miss recess
because he/she needs the physical activity.
------------------
Indeed they do! They could get an embolism sitting all day!
Lengthen the school day, take off the pressure, and increase the
education!


Assigning only incomplete work
as homework? Still unfair-after all, why should this poor child who works
slowly be penalized because of that (never mind that this poor child who
works slowly spent the whole period talking to his friends)
----------------------------
Have classes conducted in isaolation booths with computer tutors or
teachers piped in on video.


I teach music-the most common logical consequence is the "use it correctly
or lose it" rule-which works great, until PARENTS started complaining that
it was unfair for their poor baby to be unable to use an instrument just
because he/she decided to play the drum with their feet instead of their
hands-after all, I was stifling the poor child's creativity.
---------------------------------
You're too much of an asshole, here as there, nobody could get along
with a **** like you, you whine and bitch and moan and distort the
truth constantly, you'd make a really ****ty art or music teacher,
none of them were anything like that when *I* was in school!


And believe me, it isn't the parents who advocate more punitive discipline
who refuse to allow logical consequences-it's the ones who believe in NO
punishment, and apparently, NO consequenses.
---------------
That's merely YOUR paranoia and YOUR dishonest politically motivated
distortion of the truth! Other Liberal teachers not only don't SAY
that, but they actually seem to ENJOY their students!! You seem to
be a twisted-knicker sort of abusive prune of a teacher, the kind who
permits no joy in anything!


I believe strongly in logical
conseqences-because I KNOW they work if I'm allowed to use them. But all it
takes is one parent complaining for any reason, and they're not allowed.
----------------------
Then why don't you just ADAPT and quit trying to foist your sick
political and social agenda on others when we obviously hate your
kind and don't agree with you?? Or else get the hell out of teaching
and take up telemarketing or something!??


And, what happens when minor consequences are not allowed is that only the
major ones are left-so the teacher or principal ends up calling the parent
for every trivial thing (because the parent has tied their hands) and then
the parent is even more convinced that the school is out to get their child.
---------------------------------------
You need to find different work, you're really ****ty at teaching.
Steve

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"Tori M." wrote in message
...
This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in
life.
If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences.

What you don't seem to realize is that eliminating punishment is not
eliminating consequences. In a school setting if a child does not do
their
homework, they get a poor-- this is consequences. What is not necessary
are
lectures, remaining after school, notes home to parents, meetings about
what
a terrible child this is, etc. A simple statement from the teacher that
this child *WILL* receive a poor grade if this behavior continues,
followed
by a poor grade is all that is necessary.

And what are the results of this philosophy? Do the students learned
more? Do the schools no longer need cops nor metal detectors?

In the home setting there are also consequences. If you spill your
drink at
diner, you clean it up-- again, no lectures, or spankings or time in the
corner or restrictions are needed.

What if the children don't want to clean it up?

Doan

Quite honeslty this in not something I've encountered on more than a very
very infrequent basis. It is understood that taking responsiblity for one's
actions is expected, and I've found that children will what you expect of
them. If you expect that a child will act in a cooperative manner, they do
so. If you expect that a child will constantly rebel and refuse to do what
is required, they do this as well. On those rare occasions where a child
would not want to clean up, all that is necessary is disussing with the
child that you understand that they don't want to do this now, but that it
needs to be done and you would appreciate their taking care of it -- neve
rhad a problem beyond that.

Good for you! You seem to have figured out what work with your kids.
---------------
It works with ALL kids, asshole!

Your mouth is an asshole! :-)


The
problem I have with this is when you try to generalize it to everyone.
----------------
The only reason YOUR sort of emotionally distorted personality
can't make it work is NOT because of YOUR children, but because
of YOU, you're a ****ing raving abusive paranoid!

Typical response from a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

As
you acknowledged, it didn't work 100% of the times even with your own
kids!
----------------
She never said that, asshole liar!
She told you what to do!

Typical response from a "never-spanked" kid! :-)


Imagine a single-mom having to catch a bus to work in the morning
and uncooperating child that don't want to go to daycare that day.
--------------------
You support her till the child is old enough to go to school.
You provide a society that understands such things.

Like they tried in the Soviet Union? :-)

If your society doesn't do that then the society is abusive,
and she is excused for any crime she has to commit for her kid.

War is peace!

What are the consequences in this case? Theory is nice, but
reality is what really bites! Doan ---------------------- As long as
you persist in abuse, you will fail as a parent. Steve

Nope! They should just kill the kid before it turned 3-month old, like
I would if I have kid like you! :-)

Doan

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"Tori M." wrote in message
...
This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in
life. If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be
consequences.

What you don't seem to realize is that eliminating punishment is not
eliminating consequences. In a school setting if a child does not do
their
homework, they get a poor-- this is consequences. What is not necessary
are
lectures, remaining after school, notes home to parents, meetings about
what
a terrible child this is, etc. A simple statement from the teacher that
this child *WILL* receive a poor grade if this behavior continues,
followed
by a poor grade is all that is necessary.

And what happens if bad grades are not a sufficiently serious consequence
for the child to correct the failure to do his or her homework? As long as
the child is making good grades on tests, it may not be an issue. But if
the child starts to fall behind, and bad grades aren't motivating the child
to keep up, isn't something more serious needed?
-------------------
Yes, a new teacher!!!!


Keep in mind that in the adult world, the consequence of refusing to do
one's job on an ongoing basis is getting fired. So it's not as if imposing
something more serious than a bad grade on a child would be out of line with
the consequences adults face for similar behavior.
-----------------------
Learning HAS to be interesting for it even to OCCUR! That being
true, if you can't keep their interest, then you will fail, and
it is YOU who should be replaced!
Steve

Kim E. wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Tori M." wrote
This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in
life.
If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences.

What you don't seem to realize is that eliminating punishment is not
eliminating consequences. In a school setting if a child does not do their
homework, they get a poor-- this is consequences. What is not necessary are
lectures, remaining after school, notes home to parents, meetings about what
a terrible child this is, etc. A simple statement from the teacher that
this child *WILL* receive a poor grade if this behavior continues, followed
by a poor grade is all that is necessary.

I am just curious - do you see getting suspended or expelled from school
as a punishment or natural consequence? And what type of consequence
would you suggest for children in schools who sexually molest another
student, bring weapons or drugs to school, assault other students or
teachers?

-kim
---------------------------
Sexual molesation is not found in other cultures because they don't
call it that or think of it that way, they see sexual advances as
flattering and simply have sexual advance as a kind of play all the
time. Rape is punished by public beatings.

Weapons in school should mean arrest and jail in isolation until
they go insane. Either that or public beatings or extermination.

Drugs, depends which ones? Selling drugs is parasitism -- execution.
Smoking a little weed is noxious and should only be allowed outdoors.

Assaultive students should be publically beaten by their clasmates.
Steve

Doan wrote:

That is a BIG difference from what Chris claimed. Like I've said before,
a fourteen year old kid can be spanked 1,000 times a year for the first 13
years of his life (13,000 times) can still be included in this "not
spanked in the "previous six-month" group. Did that sounded like "rarely
spanked" to you?
-----------------------
All you ever do is lie and distort, lie and distort.
You should be publically beaten for fraud.


In Straus & Mouradian (1998), non-cp alternatives predicted ASB 10 times
more strongly than did non-impulsive spanking. Now you know why Chris
doesn't dare to discuss this study with you for days now! :-)
Doan
-------------------------
Lie and distort, lie and distort. That's why no one will talk to you,
you don't take the truth seriously!
Steve

"Lesa" wrote in message ...

In the home setting there are also consequences. If you spill your
drink at
diner, you clean it up-- again, no lectures, or spankings or time in the
corner or restrictions are needed.

What if the children don't want to clean it up?

Doan

Quite honeslty this in not something I've encountered on more than a very
very infrequent basis. It is understood that taking responsiblity for one's
actions is expected, and I've found that children will what you expect of
them. If you expect that a child will act in a cooperative manner, they do
so. If you expect that a child will constantly rebel and refuse to do what
is required, they do this as well. On those rare occasions where a child
would not want to clean up, all that is necessary is disussing with the
child that you understand that they don't want to do this now, but that it
needs to be done and you would appreciate their taking care of it -- neve
rhad a problem beyond that.

While its nice that you've never experienced this problem, it isn't
uncommon at all. At some point, most children will refuse to perform
some unpleasant task - such as cleaning up a mess they made - and the
parent must deal with both the completion of the unpleasant task and
the fact that the child has refused to cooperate.

Now, punishment isn't required. You can just smile pleasantly, clean
up the mess yourself and never mention it again. But whatever you
chose to do, you are teaching your child a lesson of some sort.
However, many parents find punishment of some sort, whether a
spanking, a time-out, a restriction of some sort, or a lecture, to be
an appropriate reaction. I certainly did.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Scientific truth is not determined by majority vote.
-------------------
True, but people who collect selective support and discard most
that do not should be required to do so if only to keep them honest!

It is determined by
the proper use of scientific methodologies and ONLY by the proper
use of scientific methodologies. If scientists express opinions that go
beyond what the methodologies they use can support, those opinions
are merely PERSONAL opinions, not science.
--------------------
The thing is, it cannot BE carried on fairly either on Usenet OR in
any private conversation, the budget is not available! Any such
situation then requries instead that people argue from structure,
which is the way people actually change minds and come to believe
new things anyway, and NOT through evidence, as odd as that seems!

Would you please explain what you mean by arguing from "structure"?
---------------------------
Logical reasonable assertion of cause and effect relationships and
proper syllogism.


It takes an infinitude of studies to convince absolutely in a peer-
reviewed arena, but doing so is not actually needed to prove anything
reasonably. Instead, the reasonableness of believing this or that,
namely an honest impersonal structural argument is superior!

It does not take an "infinitude" of studies to make a compelling
case.
-----------------
That all depends whom you're trying to compel. Dishonest disingenuous
assholes with veiled political social agendas of abuse will resist
you no matter how much you provide, thus they don't deserve citations,
they will abuse them, they need to be held to strict logical reasoned
explanation for their positions, the better to reveal themselves as
asshole to onlookers, and if they will not, which is usually the case,
they must be harangued and insulted off the venue.

In a Future I believe will occur, they will be forced to be logical,
reasonable, and explain themselves fully, or else be required to
recant or be tortured for their frauds. The human race has a long
time ahead of it, and much more will be required of people to be
considered civil or even legal citizens, in that distant Future!!


Just
enough studies, and sufficiently diverse studies, to address whatever
credible challenges are raised. For example, the tobacco industry long ago
gave up trying to explain away the evidence that smoking is harmful because
they no longer had any credible challenges left that research had not
addressed.
--------------------------
Yup. All disingenuous Rightists on Newsgroups do the same thing when
finally cornered by enough Truth Tellers.


If you are aware of any studies that looked specifically at parents
who never punished at all, or who never punished except when
the children's behavior would be considered a crime in adults,
or some such, I would probably find it interesting to look at.
-----------------
In this culture those would be hard to find, but in the entire body of
the research that conclusion is entirely implied by the trends in
history and the research overall. This can be discerned by the logical
reasonable person.

The fact that too much of something is harmful does not imply that its total
absence would be a good thing.
---------------
Not in the case of vitamin C, perhaps, but in the case of abuse, yes,
of course, why not? Some things are bad in ANY amount!


Clearly, too much reliance on authority and
punishment is harmful. But evidence supporting that conclusion does NOT
inherently support the conclusion that a total absence of coercion except in
response to violations of adult laws would be reliably good.
---------------------------------
Lie. There is no such "evidence".


Further, I know from my own experience that your "structural arguments" are
built on an incorrect (or, at the very least, not reliably correct) model of
how children react to being coerced.
--------------------------
Lie. There is no such "evidence". Your experience is neurotic and
partly buried traumatically. You are damaged and don't even truly
recall your pre-traumatized state.


You choose to deny that, because you
are so convinced in your model's reliability that you completely ignore
evidence to the contrary.
-----------------------
Lie. No such "evidence" exists.
Your kind always alludes to some "evidence" you can never
seem to produce.


But in doing so, you pretty thoroughly demolish
your credibility from my perspective.
Nathan
------------------------
Now you're lying and posturing desperately.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, toto wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:42:25 -0500, "Tori M."
wrote:

To raise a child to not have cause and effect
other then the "natural consequenses" (IE sticking
a fork in the outlet will get the child shocked) is just
as bad IMO then to over punish a child.

Children learn easily that *other people* can be punitive
without having their parents punish them.

Yes, that is why it is better for their parents to prepare
them for the REAL WORLD, not Oz land. Do you want your
children to grow up and be like Steve? :-)

Doan
-----------------
Given my CV you'd be an idiot to decline!!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, toto wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:42:12 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, toto wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:42:25 -0500, "Tori M."
wrote:

To raise a child to not have cause and effect
other then the "natural consequenses" (IE sticking
a fork in the outlet will get the child shocked) is just
as bad IMO then to over punish a child.

Children learn easily that *other people* can be punitive
without having their parents punish them.

Yes, that is why it is better for their parents to prepare
them for the REAL WORLD, not Oz land. Do you want your
children to grow up and be like Steve? :-)

Parents do NOT have to punish kids to prepare them for
the *real world.* They do have to instill a sense of ethics
and a sense of self-discipline.

For some, yes; for all? Kids are individuals. There is no
one size fits all solution.
-----------------------
Cowardly equivocation, your last "out" to try to excuse your abuse.


My children both have that and I am now helping to raise
my grandchildren in the same way.

Good! Are they better than the Serena/Venus Williams sisters?
Are they better than Ted Turner? Mother Theresa?
----------------------------------
I don't see any of those as excellent people, they are just famous.
That takes nuthin'!


I have said before that permissive parenting is not the same
thing as positive parenting. Giving in to the whims of anyone
doesn't help them to learn to respect the feelings of the other
person involved. But there is no need to punish children to
accomplish this.

Now where did I say anything about permissive. I am talking about
doing what best for your kids. Parents are the best ones to decide
what discipline strategy works best for their kids.
Doan
-----------------------------
Nope, their kids are.

Parents are universally deluded by their OWN abusive upbringing,
and are worse people than they hope their children will be,
thus they are the least able to judge that!
Steve