Kelly @ GC: “Do you like your children?�

[Antigone]

Kelly, Kelly, Kelly.

I'm not cut out to be a SAHM, but I do it because it is the best thing for our family right now (can't afford daycare, not even a babysitter) but Sevy starts kindergarten soon. I can't wait, because I know we need a nice long break from each other, even if it is only for 3 hours a day, but it is with her best friends, she keeps reminding me ;)

Geez, thanks for the excerpt, I didn't want to give Kelly any money :( It sounds horrifying as a mom, to read about kids suffering so much in the name of disclipine.

[Guest Anonymous]

The excerpts from her book are chilling.

I said it before and I will say it again. Babies are not inherently "sinful".

Is mine willful? Stubborn? With a mind of his own? You bet! And as much as it aggravates me when he breaks free during a diaper change, that's just what kids do.

Andi love that mine is stubborn. Means that even though he looks like a clone of his daddy, he inherited SOMETHING from his mama!..

I agree that these "keeper at home or else" types are resentful.

Personally I'm a SAHM because of money. Can't afford daycare, and really what other job would allow me to sit on my @ss and visit internet forums like this one when my kid is either napping, nursing or watching the baby einstein stuff(which. I don't normally advocate but as I explained much earlier in the thead, our sleep situation is incredibly dicey )

[browngrl]

(I hate to compare child-training to dog training, but there is a basic underlying principle that

rules all creatures. We have an underground fence around our house, and our dog wears a

collar that gives him a mild shock when he crosses over that fence. He tried to go across it a

few times when we first installed it. It shocked him EVERY time. How many times do you think

he tries to cross it now? Never. He learned that a certain behavior (crossing the line) invokes

an unpleasant response, every time. So he is 100% obedient now. Simple!)"

I actually don't use negative reinforcement even to train my dog. I use treats to reinforce behaviours that I like - and I have never had a problem with pet behaviour (I've no human children and can only comment about my furry children). I have not hit my dog or cats once - much less hit a child. Kelly et al for all their protests to the contrary - don't actually seem to like their children.

[Shirley MacLaine]

Yeah, that's about the summation. If you can't like your children until they're obedience robots, you don't really like your children.

[Effie]

Yeah, that's about the summation. If you can't like your children until they're obedience robots, you don't really like your children.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[thoughtful]

Thanks for the excerpt, ShirleyMacLaine (now that I've heard the reason for your screen name, BTW, I always think "Miss Kubelik, I absolutely adore you." "Shut up and deal." when I see it! :D But I digress.).

Not one word of it surprised me, coming from someone like her.

To me, the question "do you like your children?" means, well, do you like them -- the human beings they actually are.

Kelly doesn't, I think. People who do that "prophylactic smacking" crap may be shutting down so much of who their children really are that what they "like" is the tightly-controlled Stepford child they produce. How can they know what their children would have been like if they had been guided to become their best selves?

I'm not surprised that they have one of those stupid underground shock fences. As someone who has discussed them at length with dog trainers, I can tell you that the common problems with them have some parallels to what can happen to beaten children. Dogs can:

- sufffer serious physical harm if something goes wrong

- be willing to suffer the pain for something they want enough

- dart through it because a stimulus has tempted them enough to forget or endure the pain, then be afraid to come back

- catch on to what really causes the pain, avoid it deftly and do what they want anyway

- associate the pain with something or someone passing by, and become aggressive towards, or fearful of, that thing or person

- become totally shut down and afraid to act without direction, and/or terrified of the yard or the outdoors

- know they have nothing to fear if they slip out, or are let out, without the shock collar on

And this is only the reaction of a simpler animal to pain, and to a pain that many dogs don't realize their humans have set up.

How much more complex is the confusion and harm in a human who is asked to love and thank the pain-giver, to think that they will sink into sin and hell if they do what is forbidden, that God's love depends on it?

How much more likely is a life of head-to-head confrontations with a human who has a sense of self, pride, perhaps a "the more you push me, the more I need to push back" urge (dogs don't have any of that, as far as we know)?

How much more likely is damage to the relationship or confusion about what other actions might bring pain, when humans generalize and globalize very quickly and easily (dogs don't)?

So, the idea that pain will get you what you want, without damaging the learner or the relationship, seems even less likely with humans, to me, than it is with animals.

Like others here, I find the way people like Kelly and the Pearls compare teaching children to training animals offensive. But I don't find the basic idea of comparing teaching humans (of any age) with teaching animals offensive.

That's because I also teach animals with kindness, respecting who they are and what they want to guide them towards behavior I prefer. The comparisons can be made without implying that kids are like beasts, and with true examples that make our point, rather then theirs.

At an early enough age, both animals and people simply need to be protected from harm, fed, and kept clean. They need to get tactile pleasure from family, start hearing/seeing the language they will use later, and be gently exposed to various stimuli.

A bit later, they still get suddenly sleepy and are sometimes grabby or cranky, or play in ways that bother others, and they can't help it. They experiment with their bodies and the world around them.

Even dogs have a "puppy license" period, during which older dogs tolerate things they would never accept from a fellow adult. It usually ends at about 3-4 months of age (that is, usually just before adolescence), and holds true regardless of whether the dogs know each other, vary wildly in size, etc.

In other words, even some animals seem to have a "hey, he's just a kid -- give him a break" instinct. Shouldn't we expect that of ourselves, with our precious children?

As for how to teach what you want to teach, when either an animal or human is developmentally ready - part of it is recognizing that everybody wants something. Protect them from harm, control resources, give them what they want whenever you see behavior you want.

That's still the basic operant conditioning that Kelly and the Pearls describe, it's just the kinder, gentler (and usually much more efficient!) end of it.

Punishment? Sure -- but, going by the behavioral definition, that just means anything that has successfully reduced a behavior. So, removing a reward or potential reward is usually enough.

And even gentle punishment only teaches "don't" -- it doesn't teach or suggest an alternative behavior. So, going through so much work for "don't" and then still needing to teach what you want instead adds to the work of a parent or animal owner!

I suspect that the "are you going to kiss me or hit me" confusion that I see in some dogs who are trained with a combination of physical pain and reward would be even more likely, and more agonizing, between parent and child. So, even if the baby-switching crowd also uses positive reinforcement, that doesn't cut it. As we've discussed here before, Stockholm Syndrome, perversion of what a loving family relationship is and how you know if a person is safe to be with, etc., are all possible.

The smack 'em crowd fails to understand that, even with simple, straightforward behaviorism, there are cumulative effects. Being basically kind, then specifically rewarding whenever it is deserved, actually increases your power and authority! Every single teeny good action does not need to be rewarded forever. So their fears that positive reinforcement will lead to greedy kids who expect to be paid to brush their teeth forever is unfounded.

If you have established that you will not be hurtful, and that you reward appropriately, very often all you have to do is not be so rewarding -- sometimes just for a few seconds -- and the learner's behavior changes.

Also, there is an effect that makes previously unlikely behaviors more and more likely due to their association with pleasant memories of reward as they are repeated. So, many requested tasks that once needed to be rewarded lavishly soon only need to be rewarded lightly, then not at all, then become habit (not needing a cue or request at all), then sometimes even become rewards for other behaviors!

And that's still just on the simple behavioral level we talk about with animals -- kids rise, at a very young age, to a level beyond what an animal could ever understand, opening up many more options for teaching them.

So, considering all of their options, the way they raise kids, besides being cruel, is so lacking in imagination and genuine enjoyment of children that it just boggles my mind.

There's nothing new-fangled and hippy-dippy about this stuff. I am almost 60, and was raised by a Mom who frequently told me how much she really liked me, as well as loving me. I really felt it, and still do, in all of her actions.

She managed to be my first friend without ever shirking her duty to be a parent and have control over me when I was younger. All it took was a doubtful look, a raised eyebrow, a gentle comment, or, at worst, a flared nostril, to remind me that this lovely woman whose respect I wanted wasn't crazy about what I was doing at the moment.

My usual full disclosure -- I have not raised children of my own. I have, however, taught thousands, including being expected to control large numbers of them at a time, without corporal punishment. That was a legal mininum -- to meet my own standards, it was also without yelling (once I got my act together!) or nasty emotional manipulation.

And I know, I'm preaching to the choir here -- I imagine most FJers know all of this already. But thank you for letting me get if off my chest!

:D

[thoughtful]

Yep!

BTW, technically, the behavioral terms are used a bit differently than some of these words are used in the vernacular. A shock fence or hitting is actually an attempt at "positive punishment," as weird as that sounds.

Negative = something is removed from the environment

Positive = something is added to the environment

Punishment = a behavior has decreased

Reinforcement = a behavior has increased

Extinction = a behavior has disappeared, generally due to getting no reaction at all from the environment

So:

1. Dog does what the human wants, gets a reward, and does more of that behavior = positive reinforcement

2. Dog does what human doesn't want, an already-existing good thing goes away, dog does less of the behavior = negative punishment

3. Dog does what human doesn't want, pain or other unpleasantness happens, dog does less of the behavior = positive punishment

4. Dog does what human wants, an already-existing pain or other unpleasantness ceases, dog does less of the behavior = negative reinforcement.

5. Dog does something and gets no reaction, and it's work to do it, so he stops on his own = extinction

The first two are actually quite useful and humane. The third I never do.

The fourth is only humane if the already-existing bad thing is in the environment and unavoidable, like something you know is harmless, but the dog has decided is bad.

So, zapping a dog with a remote-control shock collar until he does what you want is a nasty attempt at negative reinforcement. Getting a dog to approach a few inches closer to the "scary garbage can" than he did before, then reinforcing that action by taking him a bit further away from it as his reward, is a good attempt at negative reinforcement.

The fifth works best if you are also teaching a preferred behavior -- nature abhors a vacuum! :D

And none of the terms apply unless change has happened -- so:

Dog jumps up, person pushes or kicks him off, dog continues to jump up = nothing, in behavioral terms - can't be called punishment because it didn't work.

I tend to use the terms in the "official" way when discussing training, even though I know those definitions don't always line up with the vernacular. So, if you ever think "hitting is positive punishment? What are you, nuts, woman?" really, I'm not! :D

[defrauding]

The fifth works best if you are also teaching a preferred behavior -- nature abhors a vacuum! :D

If that's true, then why does Kelly suck so much?

[ems]

Kelly Crawford has a new article up, cross-posted at Ladies Against Feminism, where she talks about whether or not average parents enjoy the company of their children.

Kelly is obviously talking about people who fall outside her circle of friends and acquaintances. I seriously doubt she would pal around with mothers who work/don't home-school, and so I can only assume she's reporting on comments she overheard or collected while outside her comfort zone.

Rather than meeting working mothers where they are and offering tips on how best to enjoy what time they have with their kids, Kelly suggests women should just leave the workforce and spend all day, every day with their kids. Totes easy, amirite?

Somehow that, in itself, will encourage parents to enjoy spending time with their kids.

"A mammoth-sized feminism force"??

[Shirley MacLaine]

Thanks for the excerpt, ShirleyMacLaine (now that I've heard the reason for your screen name, BTW, I always think "Miss Kubelik, I absolutely adore you." "Shut up and deal." when I see it! :D But I digress.).

:D

:dance:

[ems]

"I am a firm believer that a spanking is the best method of discipline for

younger children. There is something miraculous about the “sting†of a switch applied

consistently and firmly. And I emphasize a switch. A paddle or wooden spoon or other such

instrument can bruise or injure more easily than a thin, flexible switch. I do not recommend

“time out†unless a spanking is impossible for some reason. Time-out often provokes anger and

does not bring a child to repentance. While it may be useful in some instances (a whining child

who is removed from the family until he “gets cheerfulâ€), generally a spanking is much more

effective for disobedience."

"It is good to take the child to another room away from others for his correction. You never

want to use embarrassment as a form of punishment. As you enter the room with him, he

should see that you are not angry, but rather hurt, and even dreading this duty of yours. I have

heard of parents who cried with their child as they shared in the heartache of his disobedience.

What a sweet communication of love! Again, the focus is that the child has broken God’s law,

and it should be treated as a grave offense. Explain to him that you must obey God by giving

him a spanking. That the Bible says the parent who loves his child will discipline him. It is good

to say that you are so sorry you have to do it, and that you don’t like it, etc. He should

understand your disappointment.

Once you have clearly explained the offense, and explained that you are spanking him because

you want him to learn to obey God, offer a Bible verse related to the offense."

Oh uuugh. :( While I am not 100 percent always against spanking, I just don't understand how it leads to any sort of "heart change" they say is the goal. No, the child learns to obey in order to not get swatted/hit. That could be helpful if you just want to get a toddler to step away from a hot stove, but to actually get them to wantto do what is right? Not just unquestioningly "obey"? No.

And I really want to know where the Bible verse regarding not squirming while mommy or daddy is trying to change your diaper is...

[Kaylee]

Like others have said, the excerpt posts are almost copies of certain passages from TTUAC, with a little bit of Roy Lessin thrown on for the creepy ritualistic stuff. I'm not all that surprised, but it still makes me sad to see even more people pushing this type of abusive as the "Christian" way to parent.

To me, spanking is the lazy, selfish way of dealing with things because you don't want to take the time to actually talk to or try to understand your child, or make their environment and your belongings safe enough for them to explore. The times I've been tempted to resort to spanking were all when I was tired, irritable, and a bit lazy (not wanting to get out of the chair for the tenth time to redirect or move something), not because my so was doing something especially bad, which just affirms to me that I shouldn't spank at all.

It always bugs me to see people compare training children to training animals, especially when they go on making comparisons to methods that have been shown to be harmful to the animals and aren't used by reputable trainers anymore. I will admit that part of the reason I started looking for alternatives to physical discipline and reliance on punishment is because I was training a dog while I was pregnant, and realized that if those things were harmful to dogs they must be even worse for children, but there is still a huge difference between the two.

[lilwriter85]

Thank you Shirley although it disgusts me to read her crap.

Kelly appears to be another believer in ritualized abuse of children. And I agree that her "book" is a thinly disguised version of TTUAC.

Maybe the Pearls should sue her over intellectual property rights.

I haven't read Kelly's book but I agree from what others have said it just sounds like another versions of the Pearls book. I hate the Pearls but I would love if sued Kelly over IP rights and they would have good case against her. I bet Kelly doesn't even though that they she possibly violated an IP rights.