Parents hitting kids

[xbox]

Today I was walking to the car. I saw a little toddler running off towards the main road, the mom chasing/yelling after him, once she caught up with him she took her shoes off and was repeatedly hitting him.

It was weird.. what do you think of spanking/hitting kids. Is it necessary? I don't think it is. If you have the inability to communicate with your kids, how will they learn? To me, hitting kids just demonstrates the some kind of logical deficiency.

I was expecting the mother to grab the kid before he ran onto the main road and talk to him about how dangerous the road is, and how people could get hurt if they ran onto the road. The shoe hitting was very unexpected.

 

[Fukyo]

The above example of corporeal punishment demonstrates a lack of self control and inability to cope with frustration. Most times parents beat their kids it's exactly that, and lashing out in rage is not discipline, it's assault. The best thing it may do in making a child behave is instill fear, something that is typically detrimental in the long run.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

The best thing it may do in making a child behave is instill fear, something that is typically detrimental in the long run.

Exactly. The end product of fear is anger at having been made to fear something, thus likely ensuring the cycle of violence is repeated in the form of bullying, spousal abuse, and child abuse when the child becomes a parent. Alice Miller, author of The Drama of the Gifted Child, was dead-set against corporal punishment.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

meh

Wooden spoons are worse than shoes.

edit:
Though to be clear I don't support physical punishment.
Such a thing just has a mundane quality; yet another common, and completely incorrect method of operation favored by society.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

 

[psion]

meh

Wooden spoons are worse than shoes.

Oh God belts.. *cringes*

I remember when I was younger, I was pretty damn scared of screwing up because I'd get hit. I don't think a mother hitting her kid after almost running across the street warrants any kind of physical punishment but when your kid takes a hammer to the new dresser you've spent the last four years building and staining well... That may be a different story.

I think in severe cases I can understand the punishment, but it may be because I can't think of a proper alternative. Some kids you can't just sit down and tell "don't break things with a hammer because even though you think it's fun it makes me unhappy". It's just not going to get through, and what do you do, ground a 6 year old? I think the lack of social interaction would be worse for a kid than a half hour of a sore rear.

 

[MissQuote]

She probably shouldn't have hit him with her shoes. She really shouldn't have, her hand on the bottom would have sufficed.

I am against corporal punishment except when the alternative is a continuation of dangerous behavior. Even then it makes me cringe.

A toddler refusing to obey an order to stop running towards or into a busy (or even empty) street needs to be shocked into reality, they need fear instilled. Unfortunately. It is the type of circumstance I would consider acceptable to use corporal punishment for, discussions about why the behavior is dangerous and why they were spanked- the parents own fear of much worse consequences befalling the child if they were not shocked into reality- should always be held afterward.

As a regular method of discipline, however, used for any and/or all disobedience it is very ignorant on the part of the parent to think it would be anything other than detrimental to the health and psychological welfare of the child.

 

[Pistoli]

Young children are proven to have less of the concept of language of a chimpanzee,,this is fact. Children at ages 4 and under use words but, mostly cannot grasp concepts such as speed, direction, location, rules, weight and similar. They will tell fantastical stories with great conviction sometimes..eg.."Me and my robot dinosaur are traveling to space and, gonna eat pickles on the moon" and all they are doing is sitting a cardboard box with a colander on their head. As they get older 4-6 they start to really understand concepts such as time, rules, fairness,, playtime goes from more imagination driven activities to structured activities (games, racing each other, sport, tag). You will see 4-6 yr olds start enforcing these concepts too. Such as "that's not fair, or Johnny didn't touch base, I'm first in line),,

So yeah,,when kids are 2-4,,depending on development, the concept of "safety" is just a baby too. You can try to explain to them all day,,probably don't hurt but, they aren't gonna even begin to understand you because it is physically impossible. They might know what a bus is, or a road but, they don't know what speed is, prevention, braking power.

Gonna have to do something,, and unless you are some kind of telepathic super human, there is gonna be some yelling and possible swatting at.

 

[EvilBlitz]

Physical force as a means of discipline I consider the absolute last resort.

The best thing it may do in making a child behave is instill fear, something that is typically detrimental in the long run.

This is brilliant!!
You can expand on it further as fear can also comes from a lack of understanding. If you promote fear, for me, you are de-emphasising understanding.

I had the wooden spoon broken over my leg. Threatened with a fishing-rod(over something that could not be proved without reasonable doubt came from one of the children).
Smacked fairly hard, but I saw my younger Step-brother smacked so hard his arse went black blue and purple. I wanted to report my Step-father to the police for that, probably should have. Just plain fkn assault really.
My Step-father used fear as a tool and my Mother was and is a mindless muppet and a total sheeple.
If/when I ever have kids, I am determined not to follow any of their shit parenting.

 

[scorpiomover]

Today I was walking to the car. I saw a little toddler running off towards the main road, the mom chasing/yelling after him, once she caught up with him she took her shoes off and was repeatedly hitting him.

It was weird.. what do you think of spanking/hitting kids. Is it necessary? I don't think it is. If you have the inability to communicate with your kids, how will they learn? To me, hitting kids just demonstrates the some kind of logical deficiency.

I was expecting the mother to grab the kid before he ran onto the main road and talk to him about how dangerous the road is, and how people could get hurt if they ran onto the road. The shoe hitting was very unexpected.

Moderation is my byword. I believe that reasonable extremes are about as rare as gold-pressed latinum.

I've been hit and it was totally unreasonable, even on reflection.

I've been hit and it was totally reasonable, at then time, and on reflection after, and was glad of it.

So I believe that sometimes, it may be necessary to hit kids. But you probably would struggle to know when, unless you have your wits about you, and when you are angry, it is really hard to think straight. The majority of times I found that people hit their kids and it was unreasonable, was when they got angry, and then hit their kids out of a lack of emotional control, and then tried to rationalise and justify their errors, after the fact, mainly to hide the fact that they let themselves get totally out of control.

But then, I found that anger directed towards me, without being hit, was just as harmful as being physically abused, not just in me, but in others as well.

People need to get their anger under control. THEN, if they do have a situation where physical discipline might be appropriate, at least they can think straight.

 

[Cognisant]

I've asked my mum about how she raised me and she said the secret was to start early, be consistent and always give a warning, so she did hit me but never hard, she never had to, her consistency and reliable warnings put the power of choice in my hands, there was even this thing she would do that involved counting down from five, to this day she still doesn't know what she would have done if she reached zero, because she never did.

The last time she smacked me I was six and I nearly died of embarrassment.

Parents who beat their children or have any notion that they have to hurt the child are simply bad parents, although of course if the child is being intentionally difficult (e.g. Trying to hit you with a hammer) then it's appropriate to hit them a bit harder, again my mum told me that when I was a baby I was biting her, so she bit me back, I stopped and didn't do it again.

 

[Cognisant]

That last example may not have been "intentional" as such but it's the closest I have and the point that responding to a child inflicting pain by inflicting proportionate pain back upon the child works because it creates a feedback cycle, even as a baby I understood I had somehow brought that upon myself when the pain stopped the moment I stopped biting.

The halo of enlightenment is the feedback loop of learning.

 

[EditorOne]

Just a footnote.

The parent was apparently stimulated by fear. When you see your kid toddling off toward traffic, it's adrenaline time. While she overreacted, I'm betting she was out of control, literally. So I'm not sure I'd put this incident in the same category as "corporal punishment," because she may have abandoned reason and simply been doing what her emotions told her to do. That kid isn't old enough to know "death." But her instincts told her he does understand pain. She substituted pain as the experience one gets walking into traffic. Very gut level indeed and probably not the best solution or technique, but not the same as walloping someone with a razor strop for not finishing their lima beans at dinner.

 

[MissQuote]

I was spanked and switched many times by my grandpa as a child, he was always calm (at least on the outside) when he did so and I always knew it was coming at least ten minutes beforehand. I cannot think of a single time that I hold any resentment towards him for it. Not that I liked that switch, or anything, but I hold no resentment for it.

My sister, brother and I were were beaten with a bamboo stick by my mother frequently growing up and it was always out of pure rage and could come out of nowhere. The only thing that has made me able to finally let go of most of my resentment towards her is coming to an understanding of her mental illness and having compassion for her own plight as a human being and the difficulties just day to day living and caring for herself presents to her, let alone the difficulties of trying to cope as a single parent. Her own acknowledgement that she didn't know what she was doing and seeing the pain in her face when she says it helps me have compassion towards her instead of anger. Also seeing how hard she has worked to be healthy in the years since I moved out. But it took me a long time to reach this place. For years I had so much anger towards her for what she did to us growing up.

I guess I got both extremes growing up. The parent figure that spanked when necessary, not as the only means but as the last means, and always out of a place of calm and love. And the parent who had no control over herself and raged violence on her children because of it.

I'm only sharing that because others shared a little.

I've always felt really strongly that there should be more parenting education available. I really think educating people is the key. Education on everything from early childhood psychology to personal coping methods and everything in between.

I had my oldest child when I was 15 and I was very fortunate to be able to attend an alternative high school that provided for youths with different kinds of troubles. Most of my high school experience was learning how to be a parent. They had a very comprehensive young parenting program. The school had a daycare center that provided childcare free of charge if the parent enrolled in the parenting program. The program consisted of one hour three days a week having classes in everything from child psychology, household management, nutrition, sexual education, understanding abuse and how to avoid abusive relationships and leave them and a sort of group counselling with all of the parents talking about their lives and challenges. And two days a week for an hour a day a class that was call 'parent child time' which was basically all of the parents hanging out with their kids in the nursery and being given feedback on their interactions with their child and having any concerns about behavior and things answered in a compassionate way. (and the rest of classes were just normal type classes one would have in school) For two years this was a part of my education and I really think it is one of the reasons I was able to not end up another teen parent failure statistic.

I've always thought that if there were more programs such as this available, not just for young parents, but just in general, that more people would be equipped to be the most successful parents they were able to be.

 

[perkins]

Watch the MTV series, My Super Sweet 16. I condone giving those pampered brats a Snooki style Falcon Punch right in the suckhole.

 

[xbox]

Is instilling fear by 'hitting' (in any way, shape, or form) the only solution? Are some of you rationalizing it based on your childhood treatment? When parents hit kids they aren't doing it with the intention of 'punishing the child' but they're doing it because they have no control of their emotions and actions when they're angry.

I would think lecturing, taking away favorite things, thinking time, limiting playtime freedom, to be better solutions than hitting.

A 2-3 year old has no idea what he's doing. It's different if he were a 6 year old, he would know that the road is dangerous and was just running towards it just to piss his mother off.

 

[MissQuote]

I justify NOT hitting my kids except as a last resort based on my childhood experience.

The last time I remember seriously using corporal punishment with my children, and my sisters kids at the same time, was about two years ago, when they had been caught playing with fire, the whole group of them, they scattered papers from the recycling bin in a long trail and lit them all on fire with matches they had found.(and yes they are all old enough to be allowed to play without constant hovering supervision) All of them were given were lined up and given a spanking on the bottom that they will likely never forget by me and then by my sister. We waited half an hour to calm down first, after I had my oldest give them a piece of his mind and supervise the cleaning up of the mess they made while I calmed down. It was deliberate and without anger. They were all also grounded for weeks with all privileges revoked, there were many discussions where they were allowed to have a voice and speak their mind on the matter of what they had done and how they felt and what they learned. why was the spanking part necessary? Because any one of them could have lit themselves on fire and possibly permanently damaged or killed themselves. Yes this happens. It isn't even uncommon to hear of a poor child on the news that this happens to. They all needed to know that. They needed to understand the severity of possible consequences and that that sort of behavior is not acceptable and will be met with unpleasantness of the sort they do not ever wish to deal with. Nor that I wish to deal with. Now they bring the matches or lighter to me as soon as they find them.

A two or three year old putting themselves in mortal danger needs instant and extreme discipline. Is spanking the only solution? Probably not. Is it the quickest one to get the point across. Absolutely.

A child that young will not remember half an hour later what on earth the big problem is when you try to discuss it with them. They will take it to abstract land with no serious comprehension of the danger they were in.

I don't want to sound as though I advocate corporal punishment. I do not. I absolutely do not. There are so many more pleasant methods that are more effective and promote bonding and happiness and the furtherance of a healthy relationship.

Sometimes a shock to reality is necessary when you are dealing with a being who does not have full faculties of reason developed yet however.

And it is amazing the mischief that a group of ten year old boys can get themselves up to when they put their minds together. Don't get me started on what the little sisters can manage in an attempt to keep up.

[I realise I am putting myself up to be judged with giving the above story, whatever, go for it]

 

[EditorOne]

My only point in all this was that the mother in question was, as Xbox says, out of control, but with understandable cause many on the thread seem to have not realized, and therefore what was done could very well have been anomalous behavior on her part. It may never have even crossed her mind prior to that to ever swat her kids.

Exceptional circumstances make bad law, or, in this case, poor examples, of limited utility for drawing conclusions.

FWIW, I read somewhere once that age 7 is the youngest most people truly grasp the irrevocable nature of death.

Since it's mostly INTPs in here, minds are busy saying "well, I'd take steps to make sure my kid never was exposed to danger that made me so crazy I'd swat them." Yes, well, no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, and the enemy in this case is the five thousand things that can take your eyes off your kids at exactly the moment he/she/it gets the idea to start a fire, like Missquote's experience, or run into traffic, or play with knives, or plug the cat into the wall. Little kids are part squirrel, some of their actions are fast and random.

 

[Fukyo]

Watch the MTV series, My Super Sweet 16. I condone giving those pampered brats a Snooki style Falcon Punch right in the suckhole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Super_Psycho_Sweet_16

 

[Vrecknidj]

MissQuote and EditorOne have it right, in my opinion.

Parenting has been done by untold billions of people, with greater and lesser degrees of success, in all manner of environments (from Pleistocene era worries about babies being preyed upon by great cats to Inuit fears of hypothermia to everything in between). People are these wonderful amalgams of thinking and feeling and loving and worrying. Parents have dozens or hundreds of competing issues facing them every day.

As a rule, hitting children is counterproductive. There are times when it happens anyway, and there are times when it may appear useful or beneficial.

One can avoid problems like those in My Super Sweet 16 by starting out as a decent human being and parent in the first place. It isn't the screwed up kids who should be punched ...

Dave

 

[Spaz]

I think that smacking or hitting a child is only appropriate when there is no better alternative and it's done with "good intent". Anger shouldn't be used as an excuse to hit, because the parent's emotive displays probably affect how the punishment is received by the child.

If the parent strikes their child while visibly expressing anger or rage, it's probably going to create an emotional response in the child rather than teach. Maybe even spur aggression/rebellion in the child.

If the parent smacks their child with reasonable force (in a non-abusive way) while expressing their concern to correct or teach, rather than demonstrate their frustration, that might get the message across more effectively.

Then again, every child is different, and some are sociopathic little Eric Cartmans, so I don't know what you would do with those types.

 

[scorpiomover]

Is instilling fear by 'hitting' (in any way, shape, or form) the only solution?

1) Adult and child responses to physical pain:

When an adult tries to jump across a stream, falls, and breaks his leg, the adult usually talks about it like it was a bad thing, that is to be feared and avoided. He typically is afraid of ever trying it again, in case he suffers the same result.

When a child tries to jump across a stream, falls, and breaks his leg, the child usually brags about it, even when he is an adult. The more it hurt, the more he brags. Usually, the child WILL try it again, but this time, from a position which is likely to allow him to jump across the stream. He does not fear. He learns from his mistakes.

So physical injury and pain do not affect children, like they do adults. Adults fear physical harm and physical pain. Children do not.

1) Adult and child responses to emotional pain:

When someone close to a child dies, the child usually gets terrified that this might happen to the child again. Then the child frequently avoids making long-term attachments with anyone else, in case anyone else also dies, and leaves him.

When someone close to an adult dies, the adult usually accepts that this is a part of life, and just makes new friends, new people he considers family, or, given a reasonable amount of time, starts dating again, to find a new partner.

So emotional injury do not affect children, like they do adults. Children fear emotional harm and emotional pain. Adults do not.

Adults want to ban physical hitting, because they fear it, and project their fears onto their children, even though children do not fear it. Adults do not want want to ban emotional criticism, because they do fear it, and project their lack of fears onto their children, even though children do fear it.

What you are seeing, is the result of adults trying to treat children like themselves, rather than like the way children are.

There was an experiment done once. Lots of newborns in a hospital, were fed, clothed, etc. All their needs were met, bar one. The nurses who looked after them, never smiled, never said a word, never showed any facial expressions, or body language, that acknowledged the existence of the child, or that any of them were cared about, by anyone, in any way. All their physical needs were met, and none of their emotional needs.

All the newborns died, despite being in perfect physical condition. ALL.

 

[Hadoblado]

What? I'll entertain your point that children and adults might have different perspectives and are effected differently, but your examples are presumptuous and make too big a leap to your conclusions.

Also, I'd like to see a source for that experiment, it sounds like a ghost story.

 

[NoID10ts]

The world would be a better place all around if parents would start eating their children. Especially in third world countries where food is scarce and populations are high.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think in severe cases I can understand the punishment, but it may be because I can't think of a proper alternative. Some kids you can't just sit down and tell "don't break things with a hammer because even though you think it's fun it makes me unhappy". It's just not going to get through, and what do you do, ground a 6 year old?

Yes, it sounds more like the mother flipped out (since she started beating her kid [with a shoe]?)...

... but as far as running near the road, you do NOT screw around with that crap.

I rarely spanked my kids, and only when they were young and weren't responsive to other methods or the situation was dangerous; and if there had been prior issues with someone so dangerous, I would rather have whacked my kids' bottoms repeatedly than seen them get run over and killed by a car.

One evil is lesser (and temporary vs permanent) than the other, and "intellectual debate" with a 6 year old isn't that productive, honestly; the younger you go, the more you have to rely on immediate pain/pleasure principles to make an important message stick even if it should be used sparingly.

(it's far different when you are dealing with a teenager who is capable of higher levels of reasoning.)

I read Pet Sematary by Stephen King a good, what, 25-30 years ago? But that scene with Gage getting smacked by the tractor trailer and his "cap of blood" still haunts me. Anyone who has been a parent probably can tap into the horror of it.

EDIT: (skimming rest of thread) Yeah, MissQuote and EditorOne highlight something similar.

And geez, but it only takes a second ... literally a SECOND... for your kid to do something crazy. Not kidding. Parenting is stressful at that age, you just have to constantly be on your toes and know where your kid is and what your kid is doing. The majority of the time, things will be okay; but it only takes a few seconds of cluelessness and something unfixable and devastating could occur, and not even all the planning in the world can remove all possibility of tragedy. You think long-term and do what you need to do to keep your kid happy and healthy and whole, even if it temporarily means some discomfort.

There was an experiment done once. Lots of newborns in a hospital, were fed, clothed, etc. All their needs were met, bar one. The nurses who looked after them, never smiled, never said a word, never showed any facial expressions, or body language, that acknowledged the existence of the child, or that any of them were cared about, by anyone, in any way. All their physical needs were met, and none of their emotional needs.

All the newborns died, despite being in perfect physical condition. ALL.

I'm not aware of any purposeful experiments being done on babies, it's illegal for one. Consdering the vagueness of your anecdote coupled with the extremity of the outcome, I'm thinking it's mostly bogus.

However, you could quote Harlow's baby monkey experiment way back in '57-'63, where he created surrogate mommy monkeys that supplied needs to the baby monkeys but were cold and sterile and metallic, versus terrycloth mommy monkeys that did not feed the babies, and they preferred the terrycloth mommy anyway. They would even look to the terrycloth moms to protect them from harm when they were anxious, even if she did not feed them. While the human response might not be equivalent to the monkey response, it still seems that attachment comes via the tactile contact and emotional reassurance, not just physical need provision.

 

[7even]

Don't think anything's wrong with it. When I'm a father, I'm going to beat my kid up if he steps out of line; toughen that little fucker up from time to time. With a baseball bat.
Although I'd smother him with love most of the time...
(Doubt I'd actually hit my kid to be honest, though I just pictured knocking out my hypothetical child with a punch to the face, and it made me laugh.) "Daddy, daddy" *BOOM* "Shut the fuck up!"
If it was a female, don't know what I'd do... Guess I'd leave the beating up to my lady.
Physical pain should be felt, seems natural to me. Don't want my kid growing up to be a wimp. ALPHA MALE!
I endured some beating, I'm perfectly fine... I think. Well, at-least it hasn't had a notable effect on me. Physical pain is inevitable anyway. As long as you don't cause the kid any fucking trauma, or injuries. Kid's going to inflict way worse damage to themselves anyway.

Spanking..? That's just weird, and I'd much rather get punched in the face than spanked... That's way too humiliating.

 

[7even]

The world would be a better place all around if parents would start eating their children. Especially in third world countries where food is scarce and populations are high.

Agreed. Plus a 'baby sandwich' with some fucking mustard at Subway would be good too.
Though I'd much rather eat an adult than a baby...

 

[MissQuote]

I remember being told about that experiment when I was in sixth or seventh grade. It was supposedly some king or something that ordered it several hundred years ago. There doesn't seem to be any consensus as to who it actually was that performed the experiment (searching google) and it seems to be more of an urban legend than anything else.

The analogies provided above about fear of pain, emotional and physical, and the different reactions of children and adults I would argue as being to simplistic and not really accurate but that isn't the point of this thread an the general idea of what was meant by them is clear enough.

It can really be seen as a matter of brain development, I think. Children are pretty much ran and driven by emotional impulse, of course this plays out to lesser and greater degrees in different children, whereas adults run more on reason and reflection, again to a more or lesser extent for different adults.

There seems to be an implication though, that some choice must be made between abusing a child either physically or emotionally. One could hit the kid or call it stupid and which is likely to do less damage? Pick that one.

this isn't the case though. There is no reason that using physical force or using emotional force should have to be abusive at all. And it also doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other. It is possible to implement both and be effective and non abusive all at the same time, just as it is possible to use both and be noneffective and be abusive all at once just as it is possible to do nothing at all.

One thing that isn't being said here, that should be pointed out is that no parent actually knows what they are doing. We really don't! parenting is a long series of shots in the dark. One does their best and uses whatever tools and education the have at hand but ultimately it is a very chaotic experiment with constant changing variables and every time the parent becomes competent in dealing with the stage that is happening the child develops and moves on to a new stage. Then, just for laughs to throw the parents off more, when they think they've got the situation covered for their next child, because they have been through this before, they are reminded sharply how very human children are when nothing turns out as expected because they are dealing with an entirely different person! (The whole thing is really a lovely study in masochism.) Some parents start out more equipped than others but ultimately no one is prepared for the reality of taking on the real well being of an entire flawed person while being an entire flawed person themselves. I think every parent, who does not have something biologically or mentally wrong with them causing them to feel no affection or conscious about their behavior towards their child, does their best to do a job that no one really knows how to do all the while pretending they know what they are doing and learning more and more how much they do not.

I think INTP's may be in a unique position to be able to parent from a place of acceptance of the individual more so than other types, perhaps, due to our inclination to desire and respect autonomy and independence and our inclination to derive joy from meaningful conversation. My all time favorite thing to do with my children, at all the age level they have lived, has always been to talk with them and listen to their thoughts, and to figure out how to respond to their emotions as they express them as the individuals that they are. There was a time when this seemed like a strange thing to me, I remember on a questionnaire, some years ago, given by my sons pediatrician, when he was six or seven or so, about his over all health history there were questions about his personality and relationships with others and one question asked what my favorite thing to do with him was and I remember feeling odd about my answer being 'talk with him'. Fast forward to these years later and his dad was recently telling an acquaintance how he will talk about anything with me, tells me all about his life (he is 15 now) with a closeness and degree of openness that he just does not have with his dad. "He'll talk to her, but not me."

Spoiler

INTPs love and respect Knowledge, and want to pass their jewels of thought down to their children. Their greatest goal and satisfaction as a parent is seeing their children grow into independent, rational adults.

INTP parents are likely to encourage their children to grow as individuals, rather than attempt to fit them into a preconceived mold. They will stress autonomy through the children's growth. They're likely to respect their children's opinions and wishes, and allow their children to have a voice and presence in the family.

The INTP parents are likely to be pretty laid-back and flexible with their children, sometimes to the point of being relatively "hands-off" with regards to the day-to-day issues. They're likely to count on their spouse for providing structure and schedules. Since the INTP themself does not live in an overly structured or organized manner, they're not likely to expect or create this environment for their children. If their spouse is not someone with the "J" preference, their children may suffer from a lack of boundaries. This is something the INTP should pay special attention to. Growing children don't know Right from Wrong, and so benefit from having their parents define these boundaries for them.

In spite of their relatively unstructured approach to parenting, INTPs take their role as parent very seriously, and are likely to put forth much effort into doing what they feel will be most effective in helping their children grow into independent, wise adults. INTPs enjoy parenting, and get a lot of fun out of their children. They're also likely to be very proud and loyal parents.

INTPs may have a problem meeting the emotional needs of their children. Although they generally are deeply caring and supportive individuals, the INTP does not always pick up on emotional clues. A troubled child of an unaware INTP parent may have to result to drastic "attention-getting" tactics to get their parent to understand their emotional difficulties. If you find yourself in this situation, you may find that expressing some of your own emotions will do wonders for your child, yourself, and your relationship. Although it may not be possible for you to suddenly be "tuned in" on what your children are feeling, at least you can let them know that you care.

Children of INTP parents generally remember them respectfully and affectionately as loyal, fair, and tolerant parents, who care for them a great deal, although they don't often show it.

I remember when I first read this description of INTP parenting style it made me believe there was something to typology more than the description of what an IINTP was like personally even did.

 

[Jennywocky]

One thing that isn't being said here, that should be pointed out is that no parent actually knows what they are doing. We really don't! parenting is a long series of shots in the dark. One does their best and uses whatever tools and education the have at hand but ultimately it is a very chaotic experiment with constant changing variables and every time the parent becomes competent in dealing with the stage that is happening the child develops and moves on to a new stage. Then, just for laughs to throw the parents off more, when they think they've got the situation covered for their next child, because they have been through this before, they are reminded sharply how very human children are when nothing turns out as expected because they are dealing with an entirely different person! (The whole thing is really a lovely study in masochism.) Some parents start out more equipped than others but ultimately no one is prepared for the reality of taking on the real well being of an entire flawed person while being an entire flawed person themselves. I think every parent, who does not have something biologically or mentally wrong with them causing them to feel no affection or conscious about their behavior towards their child, does their best to do a job that no one really knows how to do all the while pretending they know what they are doing and learning more and more how much they do not.

Beautifully written, and that sums it up. It's a "learn on the job" task, and you can only do your best, trying to maximize positive outcome for your children and minimize any accidental damage you might do to them... and the reality is that parents are human, with their own hangups.

I would say, though, that my children made me a better human being. I had to rise beyond myself to be the parent they needed me to be.

I think INTP's may be in a unique position to be able to parent from a place of acceptance of the individual more so than other types, perhaps, due to our inclination to desire and respect autonomy and independence and our inclination to derive joy from meaningful conversation. My all time favorite thing to do with my children, at all the age level they have lived, has always been to talk with them and listen to their thoughts, and to figure out how to respond to their emotions as they express them as the individuals that they are.

That sounds remarkable like how I approach parenting as well. Between me and my ISFJ ex, I was the one who consciously respected autonomy and wanted to empower my kids to become independent and "more themselves" -- I had a very good intuitive sense of who my children were and what they might need, and who they could become if they were empowered -- whereas my ex was better at dealing with practical needs in the moment. Between us, we covered many of the bases the kids needed. I really have enjoyed relating to my children as they've gotten older, since we can have the most amazing conversations now, and share insights about life, etc.

The world would be a better place all around if parents would start eating their children. Especially in third world countries where food is scarce and populations are high.

... and you thought you were being witty:

http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-smuggling-roasted-human-fetuses-131604941.html

Man Arrested for Smuggling Roasted Human Fetuses
Sorry in advance for ruining a lovely Friday morning. There's pretty disturbing news coming out of Thailand where authorities have arrested a man for smuggling six roasted human fetuses in his luggage. (We said sorry!)
RELATED: Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing

... that'll learn ya!

 

[Lot]

Don't think anything's wrong with it. When I'm a father, I'm going to beat my kid up if he steps out of line; toughen that little fucker up from time to time. With a baseball bat.
Although I'd smother him with love most of the time...
(Doubt I'd actually hit my kid to be honest, though I just pictured knocking out my hypothetical child with a punch to the face, and it made me laugh.) "Daddy, daddy" *BOOM* "Shut the fuck up!"

I almost choked to death on my water, because I laughed so hard.

Spanking worked for me. It didn't help my little brother. He would laugh in my parents face just to spite them. All children seem to be different. But like most of the parents on here keep saying, children at a certain age can't really reason. So you need some way to get them to stop doing destructive/dangerous behavior. I like the idea of letting natural consequences happen out of the child's actions. Of course letting them get hit by a car or drown are counterproductive. If you say, "don't touch the stove. You'll hurt yourself." and he doesn't listen. Then he burns his hand, I bet he won't touch the stove again, he might even listen to you next time you warn him. But this is all just theoretical for me. You have to have sex before you can start raising children.

 

[MissQuote]

Beautifully written, and that sums it up. It's a "learn on the job" task, and you can only do your best, trying to maximize positive outcome for your children and minimize any accidental damage you might do to them... and the reality is that parents are human, with their own hangups.

I would say, though, that my children made me a better human being. I had to rise beyond myself to be the parent they needed me to be.



That sounds remarkable like how I approach parenting as well. Between me and my ISFJ ex, I was the one who consciously respected autonomy and wanted to empower my kids to become independent and "more themselves" -- I had a very good intuitive sense of who my children were and what they might need, and who they could become if they were empowered -- whereas my ex was better at dealing with practical needs in the moment. Between us, we covered many of the bases the kids needed. I really have enjoyed relating to my children as they've gotten older, since we can have the most amazing conversations now, and share insights about life, etc.

:

My friend and I have a joke that the entire goal of parenting, summed up, is to keep them alive while trying not to kill them.

Really, everything you do, from feeding them to disciplining them to nurturing their emotions to giving them lessons in music and teaching them to swim and hugging them and teaching them to read and to speak up if someone touches them in the wrong ways, all of this is an attempt to keep them alive and keep your sanity and wits enough to not kill them accidentally in the process.

My guy is an ISTJ that sometimes acts like an ISFJ and he is much better at implementing structure (or attempting to) and remembering to keep up on things like having the kids do their homework and chores. He is definitely the Rule Setter. Though his rules aren't often followed through with. He is funny though. He gets very proud of himself every time he thinks up a New Rule to make life work better in regards to the kids. Whereas i usually just go "hey, you guys should do this stuff because it makes sense and we are a family and no one wants to do the dishes anyway but none of us will have to do them all the time if we take turns and try not to flake out when it is our turn so just go do it because it is your turn."

 

[Panopticon]

My father was an INTP. He would threaten to beat my ass if I misbehaved, and I lived in fear of him because of it until I was like 15, but he never actually laid a hand on me. Not besides some swatting in my early years that I dont remember.

I remember one time I was 4 years old watching people jump into a pool while I was sitting on the first step of a jacuzzi. So then I decided to run off towards the pool because I was ready to jump in like them too. I got inches away from the edge of the deep end when my father grabbed me. He then dunked me into the cold ass pool and held me under for a while, then pull me up and down again and again. May have seemed harsh to others there, but right there I knew what potential drowning feels like. I never did that again.

If I have a kid I am just going to emulate that South Park episode where they have the Dog Whisperer teaching cartman how to behave.

 

[scorpiomover]

I'm not aware of any purposeful experiments being done on babies, it's illegal for one.

NOW it's illegal, and considered immoral. People didn't always consider the needs of children and babies first.

In the height of the Industrial Revolution, it was routine in factories, for children to be used to pick up the stray bits of cloth and thread, that fell on the floor, and to go in and fix a malfunctioning machine, because they were smaller and had smaller hands that could reach the parts easier, while the machines were still working, so the factory owners wouldn't lose money. It was pretty common for kids to lost a hand, or get chopped up completely, by the machines, and the factory owners didn't seem to care.

Consdering the vagueness of your anecdote coupled with the extremity of the outcome, I'm thinking it's mostly bogus.

I read it a while back, in a psychology book. It's one of those experiments that some people did, back when doctors were given free licence, unlike today.

Like the doctor that tried to cure epilepsy by sucking out the hypothalamus with a straw. True story. Look up Patient HM. He can remember what happened today. He cannot remember what happened yesterday, even though yesterday, he had perfect recall of the same events. He's the most studied person ever.

Also the doctor that performed thousands of lobotomies up and down the USA, which helped 30%, did nothing for 30%, and made 30% much worse. Still continued for decades.

Also the Eugenics Record Office, which sterilised thousands of poor Americans, without their knowledge, on the beliefs of Dr Charles Davenport, and many doctors and scientists of the time, that it was in the interests of everyone, that such people did not bring more children into the world.

However, you could quote Harlow's baby monkey experiment way back in '57-'63, where he created surrogate mommy monkeys that supplied needs to the baby monkeys but were cold and sterile and metallic, versus terrycloth mommy monkeys that did not feed the babies, and they preferred the terrycloth mommy anyway. They would even look to the terrycloth moms to protect them from harm when they were anxious, even if she did not feed them. While the human response might not be equivalent to the monkey response, it still seems that attachment comes via the tactile contact and emotional reassurance, not just physical need provision.

I watched a programme about that, and so am aware of that experiment as well.

I agree that it suggests that emotional response is important.

However, that experiment was less clear, in my opinion, and was on monkeys. It led to Attachment theory, which has been interpreted to focus only on positive physical contact, such as hugging, rather than the emotional content within. So I feel that while it is consistent with my opinion, it does not serve to support it.

 

[snafupants]

The above example of corporeal punishment demonstrates a lack of self control and inability to cope with frustration. Most times parents beat their kids it's exactly that, and lashing out in rage is not discipline, it's assault. The best thing it may do in making a child behave is instill fear, something that is typically detrimental in the long run.

Economies thrive on fear, fare but little fair.

 

[ObliviousGenius]

Oh boy this brings back memories. I'm really surprised no one has brought up the cultural differences when it comes to spanking. Me and my younger brother got countless "whoopins" (with a belt) when we were small kids. Both of my parents are ticking time bombs ready to explode at any moment and EVERY, not usually, every time we got whooped they were upset. Their aim was to teach us not to do whatever it was that we had done ever again.

Unfortunately, as some others have mentioned, that only did nothing but put fear in us. My parents are highly religious and have always told us they whoop us because the bible tells them too and "because the love us", which I still don't consider an explanation to this day because there are alternatives.

I've never considered spanking to be some form of child-abuse because nearly all parents in my culture do it. Most of the times spanking is hard and excessive, whoopin tools are: belts, co-hangers, extension cords, paddles, or anything else they can come up with.

The thing that frustrates me the most is that my parents and their parents have always done it the exact same and can't think up new ways to punish their kids. It's just the sensing, traditionalist attitude they take when it comes to scolding.

Kids need to understand the effects of their actions and parents need to have patience with them. The whoopers are the ones who have no patience and don't understand the fact that kids are kids. I think kids need to understand right and wrong in a natural way, not forced onto them. There are plenty of ways to teach this. It's all about knowing your kids individually and figuring out what suits them best. At least that's how I'd go about when I get kids.

 

[Felan]

The problem with punishment (or negative reinforcement) is that you are forcing a change in behavior but not directing where the behavior should go. Since it is child their ability to judge in what way to change their behavior is minimal or nonexistant. So the child's existence becomes a guessing game of reducing the punishment they get.

 

[Da Blob]

Today I was walking to the car. I saw a little toddler running off towards the main road, the mom chasing/yelling after him, once she caught up with him she took her shoes off and was repeatedly hitting him.

It was weird.. what do you think of spanking/hitting kids. Is it necessary? I don't think it is. If you have the inability to communicate with your kids, how will they learn? To me, hitting kids just demonstrates the some kind of logical deficiency.

I was expecting the mother to grab the kid before he ran onto the main road and talk to him about how dangerous the road is, and how people could get hurt if they ran onto the road. The shoe hitting was very unexpected.

The idea of corporal punishment as presented by the liberal POV is rather idealistic. I am not an advocate of child abuse, but training a child via conditioning using pain as a negative re-enforcer and pleasure to re-enforce positive behavior has worked for thousands of years and it will continue to work for thousands more. Until someone comes up with a better system, criticism is nonproductive.

Does a human need self-disciplne to adapt to his or her environment? If so, what is the origins of such except for external discipline internalized and claimed as one's own? Whatever, the alternative to corporeal punishment could be it must be one that develops self-discipline to such a degree than an individual will push his or her self to the breaking point, able to endure agony to reach a goal and willingly face death. Otherwise, in competitive situations where self-discipline is required, those without such strength of will lose to those trained in the art of discipline via the primitive rituals of pleasure and pain.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

My parents cut down on physical punishment with each successive child and they don't do it at all anymore. Though they've changed a lot over the years.

I don't think spanking is much of a big deal, as personally I'd much rather get hit than screamed at. That being said, I don't really think it's necessary. I've dealt with nightmare children and don't see it how it would ever be effective. Sure you're using fear as a tool, but you're also signaling that you've lost control and given into the child's chaos. If you must spank, use a deadpan affect. I would, however, advocate strongly against screaming, ever.

Growing up, there were a number of odd instances; being chased around by my mom and hit with a wooden spoon. I wouldn't submit to being spanked with said spoon, because wooden spoons fucking hurt. She generally preferred vocal methods, but she's slapped me in the face a couple times, and pulled out a great deal of my hair when she thought I was running away, though she didn't do so with impunity. Ah religious tensions and emotionalism.

My Dad sometimes grabbed us by our ears or the skin on our throats and pulled hard. He said it was the most effective way to get our attention. The throat thing I am/was bothered by, simply because it never bruised, but it hurt for weeks afterward and if he grabbed me in same spot before it healed..... well I could never stop the tears. I realize now that he had no idea of the extent of the effect. I've brought it up a few times as an adult and he always gets really sheepish about it. I can't really hold it against him.

Our relationship has improved ever since a certain cataclysmic even when I was 16 and I'm close with them now. Given their upbringing, they were spectacular parents. I don't really have any hard feelings about it now.
I'm oddly proud of the long way they've come.



However....
I think in the long run it has left me less fearful and perhaps headstrong. I certainly don't fear my parents. People with 'soft' parents, sometimes seem bizarrely intimidated by everything.

 

[7even]

I've never considered spanking to be some form of child-abuse because nearly all parents in my culture do it. Most of the times spanking is hard and excessive, whoopin tools are: belts, co-hangers, extension cords, paddles, or anything else they can come up with.

Oh man, I can relate. Just knowing it you're going to get your ass kicked, but which with weapon? It's a fucking mystery! ... Please not the belt.
Co-hangers were a bitch too.
Flip flops just really got under my skin.

 

[Solitaire U.]

It's really bad form for a parent to hit their kid while out in public. Actually, it's really bad form for a parent to hit their kid at all. Not a fair fight.

That said, I can totally relate to the urge to smack one's kid when they do something exceedingly stupid or life-threatening like described in the OP. I've been there more than once with my own kids. It's impossible to describe the rush of impulsive feelings that take hold when one sees one's offspring in mortal danger, but though the results may appear brutal or over-blown to onlookers, I'd wager it's actually a protective behavior. Non-parents apparently have a difficult time understanding/accepting it.