mellemhund said:
I don't think I can argue this with you. The man is stumbling over words because of the adrenaline he got running from acting out his revenge on a daughter he feels slighted him in public. Then he goes theatrical (yay, more great parenting there) and destroys something. whether it would be don't with hammer, hands or guns is irrelevant it a violent action.
Here's a thought -- it's possible that, like millions of people, the man has a slight stutter. It's also possible that, in trying to get his message across on camera in a single "take," he's a bit
nervous. Oh, but no, only
your interpretation of the emotional state of everyone involved should be considered, right?
This destruction of property is not "violent." Now, if he were
smashing something of hers in front of her in an effort to scare her? Yes, that would be an act of violence. But you can see, if you watch, that she is not present. He isn't yelling or stomping or pounding his chest. He is
very calm in his presentation. And, above all,
he is destroying HIS OWN PROPERTY.
Dastardly said:
Or so said a textbook somewhere once.
Maybe you should have a closer look at them books some times. Educated people tend to make better decisions on the matters.
I would know, being one of those educated people. As a professional educator, I'm well-studied in learning, motivation, and discipline in children. My specialty area, in fact, is middle school (ages 11 to, often, 15). Even with my knowledge and experience, I don't believe there is any call for
prescriptive parenting. I believe that there are a multitude of correct ways to parent, and we need only respond to the destructive ways.
What he is doing does not damage (or seek to damage his child) in any way. Nowhere does he demonstrate an unsafe or unloving home environment. In fact, he demonstrates a clear interest in her betterment as a person. He targets the undesirable behavior directly, makes the punishment "fit the crime," and explains his reasoning very clearly.
The
only criticism that could be levied at this man, from my perspective, is that he did this all publicly. But even that is a weak criticism. Sure, it'll embarrass her, but that's clearly survivable. It'll serve to make the message clearer. Furthermore, it will serve to ensure the friends she was venting to also share in this -- she will have fewer "allies" who have only heard
her side of the story. That makes it harder for her to find the hollow validation that young adults use to perpetuate their flawed world views.
Dastardly said:
1. Spanking isn't about "teaching them not to be violent."
Letting you reach the hot iron and hitting a kid is 2 completely different things. When kids grow up with violence being an accepted response, they will become more prone to violence. No matter what the intentions of the parents is![/quote]
Only in a vacuum. In the absence of
any other influence, kids that get spanked
might grow to believe "hitting solves problems." But that only occurs in negligent homes, and I think it's pretty clear that, in those homes, the damage is already being done by that negligence.
I didn't have any trouble as a child separating, "My parents can spank me for disobeying" from "I'm not allowed to hit people, because I'm a child." Why? Because my parents made that distinction clear.
The vehement "anti-spanking" advocates base their interpretation of research on the idea that "spanking parents"
only spank,
always spank, and never
explain. Are there abusive parents out there? Yes. Plenty that hit, and plenty that
don't, too. Just like with guns, the extremists love to think that because a small group misuse something, no one can be trusted.
Dastardly said:
So only dictators can raise kids in your POV? the moment you have to resort to threats with kids, you have failed. Firm boundaries are about being a parent from the start and not just waking up to it, when the kids get old enough to form opinions of their own. Instead of threats you have mutual understanding, buts that takes actually talking to your kids and explaining the situation. It's just so much easier to just go "because I'm right" and that's what the fail-parents do.'
The problem is that you like to use the word "threat" because you feel it proves your point. All a "threat" is, when you boil it down, is
telling someone the consequence for disobedience. If you could convince a kid to never, ever disobey, we wouldn't need rules at all.
If you say, "You stayed out past our agreed curfew. You can't go out tomorrow. If you do it again, you'll lose those privileges for a week," guess what you just did? You
threatened your child! They pushed the boundary you set (as
every single child in existence ever will do at some point) and you reinforced that boundary with a clear consequence that you've spelled out
in advance. A "threat," if you will.
Also, regarding the "because I'm right," that's an inevitable fact of
real parenting, not theoretical book parenting. There are cases where a child won't truly understand the reason behind a rule. And there are many, many cases in which they simply won't believe you. Why? Because, unlike you, they haven't seen the bad things happen. You can explain until your face melts off, but children (who, historically, aren't known as the most logical or reasonable creatures) will sometimes argue simply because they don't
like your conclusion. So you can choose to "discuss" it for eternity... or, sometimes, you put your foot down, declare, "Because!," and trust that (just like with yourself) experience will eventually
show them what you're trying to
tell them.
Only theoretical-parents deal in the kind of absolutes you're throwing out here.
Dastardly said:
1. If she doesn't do her choirs, then he is clearly not confronting her with it when that happens, since he is now set up in a chair outside somewhere and he has had to premeditate this whole "I'll show her" seance. Can we agree on that?
This situation isn't about whether or not she does her chores. It's never clearly spelled out whether she has or not. The issue at hand is that she is
using her father's laptop to badmouth her household (with boldfaced lies) behind their backs. That is something she was already punished for in the past, and this was the "next time you do it" consequence.
2. If she does them, but complains to her friends about it. then who is he to get upset about it? That reaction is exactly the vengeful bad parent that I would wish on no kid.
He is her father. He is the guy that pays all of her bills and is responsible for her upbringing. If she was just saying, "Man, I really hate these chores. These chores suck. I wish I didn't have to do these chores," I could agree with you. Instead, she:
1. Directly insulted her parents, calling them "lazy" and several other names.
2. Insulted a friend of the family, treating her like hired help.
3. Claimed to be assigned chores that, as we learned in the video, actually weren't assigned -- she was just trying to make the situation look worse with lies.
4. Grossly overstated her responsibilities and understated her current privileges.
Basically, she spouted insults and lies, and demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of how her home (and her place in it) actually works.
That kind of misunderstanding is exactly the kind of thing that parents are SUPPOSED to fix. You'll notice the father did it without insults or lies, too.
If you think broadcasting a theatrical revenge on your kids is parenting, then I hope you neither have nor will ever have any kids. Parents who get their methods from the worst dictators is not fit to be parents.
Do yourself a favor and don't have children. I fear that, if you do, you'll discover that they aren't robots programmed with Asimov's Three Laws, giving them perfectly predictable behaviors. When people in your situation discover that children are actually miniature individuals, who may (for reasons you don't understand) go completely against your best-laid plans,
they actually turn into some of the most emotionally (and even physical) abusive parents, out of severe disillusionment and frustration. I wouldn't wish that potential future on any child.
Your entire "case" is built upon using the words "violence," "threat," and "revenge" for shock value. The words do not apply to this situation.
