Parenting

[zane900 1]

For the most part, when bad parenting wanders into our minds, we think about things such as child abuse. It's not like that.

Think about it. Before some of you were even born, a perfectly normal and likable couple were on television. They loved their baby as much as any other parent and they wouldn't hurt it for their lives. But by 2 years of age, their baby still only weighed 15 pounds. They were vegans and wanted to raise their baby as such, but even so didn't give it the nutrition it needed to survive. Shortly after, as expected, their baby died.

Some cases are as non-violent as this one, some are 10 times as violent. It doesn't matter. Not one of these cases is more minor or major than another. In each, a child dies. The variable here is the type of person and role model the parent is, but that has nothing to do with the child. If I had to take a test to get into middle school, if I had to take a test to get into high school. If I'm going to have to take a test to get into college, if I have to take a test to become a lawyer, a teacher, even a garbage man, why shouldn't I have to take a test to become a parent, possibly the most important job in the world?

I understand that this point could be argued against and with for ages and ages, and I understand that billions would disagree, and I understand that each one of you has their own mind, their own body, their own feelings, but that's not what I'm getting at here. If we could, in some way, make sure that every parent could raise a child properly, and I'm not asking them everyone in the world to be the best parent every, if every parent could have the ability to raise a child properly, this world would be a better place.

[coolotter88 2]

wait a minute, is breastmilk against vegan ideals? =| confusing isn't it.

[zane900 1]

Some obligated nutritions are.

[autoVino 26]

Well child abuse isn't even parenting.

It's abuse and possibly is the result of something missing in life (mental disorders, etc) or some obsticle that normally should't  be there (ie drugs, drinking, etc).  I mean some people put their child into a microwave?  this is crazy!

But bad parenting can range form starving a child (as in the example) to not properly punishing a child.  For example, just "grounding" a child doesn't really work, they will always find another source of entertainment.

But, as my culture does and always did, spanking works really well.  It got me into a really good shape, same with my father, grandfather, etc.  As long as the child doesn't get phisically injured it isn't abuse.

Bad parenting doesn't always lead to death either.  It can lead to a highly abnormal social life or life in general.  It can lead to drugs, excessive drinking, and all the bad things in that category.  This is just what my philosophy is on parenting...

edit: heh heh, anyone interested in buying a baybe einstein video from google ads?

[Micah 16]

I'm moving this to the Off-topic forum since it seems like something I'd see there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, here is an example of what happens when you impose a fad on an infant.  Vegans who eschew all animal foods including milk, cannot expect to raise an infant omnivore using this discipline.

The vegan idea is a food fad.  It is clearly wrong, and provides a way to commit suicide by improper diet.  Vegans are welcome to do this to themselves, but may not force it on others.  I would charge the parents with willful homicide.  Up here they would get at least 14 years each to think it over.

[ShortStraw 1]

I used to think all people should be temporarily sterilized before puberty then "un-sterilized" only after they had been educated in good parenting skills and perhaps passed some kind of mental evaluation.  Maybe even gone through some sort of liscensing process.

Then I remembered Human Rights. 

*sigh*

Another good plan down the drain.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: zane900  If I had to take a test to get into middle school, if I had to take a test to get into high school. If I'm going to have to take a test to get into college, if I have to take a test to become a lawyer, a teacher, even a garbage man, why shouldn't I have to take a test to become a parent, possibly the most important job in the world?quote>

Well, the biggest reason is simple practicality. A school can not let you go there if you don't take its test. No one will hire you as a lawyer, teacher, or garbage man if you aren't properly qualified. All of these situations involve people other than individual in question. On the other hand, becoming a parent only requires any action on the part of the potential parents. Sure, you can pass a law saying that you need a license to raise children, but then what happens when a woman gets pregnant without being licensed? Do you make her give the baby up for adoption? That just isn't right. Psychology shows that children have innate bonding with their parents, especially their mothers, and that a child will grow up best if they live with both of their parents as opposed to just one of them or some other guardian. This is why you see mental health issues becoming more common; more divorces and unstable (or nonexistent) relationships between parents means more psychological trauma for the kids. And the problem only enforces itself. People who's parents had healthy, stable relationships are very unlikely to ever have any of their marriages break up, people's who's parents fought with each other and/or were separate end up with a strong disposition for having the same happen to them. Similarly, people who grow up separated from their parents entirely never learn how to properly be a parent themselves, even if they're in the care of a happy married couple. You just can't have the same kind of connection with adoptive parents as you can have with real ones. It is for this reason that I consider adoption something which should never be done unless the kid's parents are dead, it's simply not good for the kid. Besides, I, as a parent, would never be able to live down the fact that I had a kid and then just went and gave them off to who knows who, and now have no clue what became of them. Say what you will about abortion, but at least you know what's become of an aborted fetus, so you don't need to spend the rest of your life tortuously wondering what happened to it and whether it's okay. The same goes for any friend or relative. I'd rather know they're dead and be done with it than constantly wonder whether or not they're alive. Because as bad as facts can be, not knowing the facts is always worse, since it leaves things up to your imagination, and your imagination can come up with some really horrible scenarios. And if you know someone's dead, you can get over it and move on. If you don't know, you really can't.

The real problem here is a clash of rights of the parent versus rights of the child. Parents have a right to raise children how they see fit, and children have a right to be raised properly. What do you do when the two conflict? There's no solution that doesn't involve someone's rights getting infringed upon. Since the child is a minor and the parents are adults, the rights of the parents come first unless some actual physical harm is being done to the child.

Being vegan in and of itself is utter stupidity. Enforcing it on others is just sickening. The scenario given here is even worse. These people would rather kill their child than break with their twisted way of thinking. I suspect, however, that they never actually considered that thought, and that you instead had huge helpings of rationalization and denial. "Oh, it's not his diet that's killing him" "Oh, it's okay, he'll adjust to it", etc. They definitely need to spend some significant time behind bars, but the

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Similarly, people who grow up separated from their parents entirely never learn how to properly be a parent themselves, even if they're in the care of a happy married couple. You just can't have the same kind of connection with adoptive parents as you can have with real ones. It is for this reason that I consider adoption something which should never be done unless the kid's parents are dead, it's simply not good for the kid.quote>

Whoa.  I know plenty of adopted people who are glad they were adopted.  Yes, they have been through a bit more angst than the rest of us but angst is part of life.

The real problem here is a clash of rights of the parent versus rights of the child. Parents have a right to raise children how they see fit, and children have a right to be raised properly. What do you do when the two conflict? There's no solution that doesn't involve someone's rights getting infringed upon. Since the child is a minor and the parents are adults, the rights of the parents come first unless some actual physical harm is being done to the child. quote>

I do not believe that parents have the "right" to subject their children to a diet that is deadly to them.  or to do half of the crazy things I've heard about.  But no one wants to get to the point where the state is raising your kids.  It's a tricky balance.

[zane900 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Being vegan in and of itself is utter stupidity. Enforcing it on others is just sickening.quote>

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Obviously being a vegan isn't a religion, but oppositions against it are very similar. It works for some people, and not for others.

Originally posted by: Duke87 The scenario given here is even worse.quote>

True, but the fact that these parents were vegans isn't really the point here. They didn't know how to properly feed a child. Period.

Originally posted by: autoVino Well child abuse isn't even parenting.quote>

There's two ways to look at this. A mother could try to drown her child because she's not prepared for the screaming a screeching. But a mother also could try to drown her child because she was  mentally disordered, yes.

Originally posted by: Micah I'm moving this to the Off-topic forum since it seems like something I'd see there. quote>

Oopsies.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw I used to think all people should be temporarily sterilized before puberty then "un-sterilized" only after they had been educated in good parenting skills and perhaps passed some kind of mental evaluation.  Maybe even gone through some sort of liscensing process.quote>

Interesting Idea that  would probably work. Would mean you would have to have a procedure

to have childern so would only happen when a child was  planed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes [

Interesting Idea that  would probably work. Would mean you would have to have a procedure

to have childern so would only happen when a child was  planed.

quote>

This is why we should all take a little more time typing.  Your sentence suggests that the child should be smoothed off mechanically as with a plane.  I am sure you meant to say planned.

People say that spelling doesn't matter, but you see how a slip or two makes a sentence into nonsense.  Oh, and children is spelled wrong too.  If you used Firefox, the spelling checker would have caught that.

[Voar Tok 4]

With all the information out there on babies and what it takes to raise one (not talking about cultural values here - just basic stuff like how to change a diaper, formula vs breast milk, etc.) ignorance of how to raise a baby isn't an excuse for the baby dying from malnutrition. This isn't Africa either. There was obviously something to feed the baby with, so the question is, why didn't they? It's not like you can't throw some cooked pinto beans and rice into a blender and make your own baby food if you didn't want to use commercial stuff. And the fact that the baby only weighed 15 pounds two years later is a dead give away too. That baby should have weighed at least twice that much by then. Part of me wonders if they ever took the kid to a pediatrician too. If they did, the doctor should have known something was wrong, and if he/she didn't say anything, then they're guilty of letting child abuse continue.

[DOXXP29 5]

That's a good one, ShortStraw! I never thought of that, but, unfortunately, it will probably never see the light of day in the civilized world. I have always thought that a test or license would be a good idea for the same reasons you mention and more. My hero, William Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner from Stanford University (I believe) had a great idea in the late '60's. Since the average I.Q. (or "normal" for one's age) is 100, he used this as the standard. He proposed that anyone with an I.Q. of less than 100 should have the option of getting sterilized and be paid $1,000 for every I.Q. point below 100. Of course, he was immediately criticized as trying to engage in ethnic cleansing, but he had quite a few supporters. Some of the things he used to support his arguement were the higher incidence of child abuse (using statistics of the time) in families where the parents were lesser educated, the fact that people with less education were having more kids and at an earlier age than those who had higher levels of education, (this was around the time where the population explosion was becoming a hot topic), and the fact that lesser educated parents were becoming incarcerated at a higher rate, which would lead to broken homes. He also believed that more educated people would be more aware of what they were getting into before deciding to have a child. This was based, in part, on the fact that "the pill" (which had just recently become available in 1960) as well as other forms of contraceptive were being used by "more educated" people. Another related arguement was that "more educated people" would more readily disregard the religious ban on contraceptives, such as the recent renewed campaign by the Catholic church after Vatican II against the use of contraceptives by either the husband or wife.

Needless to say, his view was taken seriously and supported by the scientific community but the general populace thought he was a crackpot and a heretic, not to mention a Neo-Nazi who wanted to rid the world of "inferior people". (Which was probably his intent, though not necessarily in an "evil" way. He thought that the world would benefit from this and be a better, more productive, intelligent and well educated place and, of course, since it was voluntary and payment was involved, it was by no means being forced on anyone and, as a side benefit, the poor could get some money (a decent sum for the times with the added bonus that the more stupid the parents, the richer they'd be) to educate themselves and raise their standard of living.

I don't know how well those arguements would fare today as I have no idea what the statistics are regarding intelligence and child abuse. While we've all seen in the media some horrible instances of child abuse among the poor, we've also seen some hideous and heinous cases among the more educated and intelligent parents as well.

This was the closest I've seen to any form of "licensing" of parenting. China, of course, has the one child rule, which has been in effect for some time. This is not voluntary, however, and is only used as a means of population control with no regard for child abuse or lousy parenting. There have been a few cases in the past several years where a parent has been convicted of serious child abuse and the judge has ordered, as a condition of probation, that the person not have any more kids. I believe that these cases were challenged, however, and found to not be "legal". (Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It's been awhile since I've read about these cases.) Baltimore City, several years ago, was looking at a way to reduce the high rate of teenage pregnancy with the accompanying problems for the children as well as the young mothers. They came up with the idea of giving free implants of Norplant, a birth control drug that would last for about five years. (This implant could be removed, if the woman/girl so desired, at any point.) It actually gained approval, but the religious community was up in arms and raised such holy hell that it was quickly abandoned. As usual, their argument was that the teenagers should totally abstain from sex and therefore not have kids which, of course, wasn't going to happen, since the teenagers were doing it like bunnies as they have throughout the ages. So instead of having sex and not having kids, they're having sex and still bringing kids into the world in a state of poverty where the mother has the odds stacked against her as far as getting ahead in the world and furthering her education. And, sadly, in the vast majority of the cases, the father takes no responsibility and is nowhere to be found after having had his fun and performing his role as a sperm donor.

But what is the best way to prevent child abuse? It has been well documented that typically, abusers come from an environment where they have been abused themselves. Many become parents without realizing that the abuse they grew up enduring is not normal behaviour and is wrong. Education, making future parents aware that abuse is not normal, would be a great start. Parenting classes, which are becoming more widespread, are also an excellent tool to help young parents along in giving some guidance when it comes to disciplining their children. And in cases where a parent abuses a child, the parent should be locked up for a significant amount of time with a "No Contact" order when the abuser finally gets out of prison.

But what do I know? I never had any kids, nor did I ever have the desire to have any.

[zane900 1]

Originally posted by: N_O_BodyThis is why we should all take a little more time typing.  Your sentence suggests that the child should be smoothed off mechanically as with a plane.  I am sure you meant to say planned.quote>

I remember when I got incredibly mad at you for stating a similar content in response to one of my posts.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok With all the information out there on babies and what it takes to raise one (not talking about cultural values here - just basic stuff like how to change a diaper, formula vs breast milk, etc.) ignorance of how to raise a baby isn't an excuse for the baby dying from malnutrition. This isn't Africa either. There was obviously something to feed the baby with, so the question is, why didn't they? It's not like you can't throw some cooked pinto beans and rice into a blender and make your own baby food if you didn't want to use commercial stuff. And the fact that the baby only weighed 15 pounds two years later is a dead give away too. That baby should have weighed at least twice that much by then. Part of me wonders if they ever took the kid to a pediatrician too. If they did, the doctor should have known something was wrong, and if he/she didn't say anything, then they're guilty of letting child abuse continue.quote>

I truthfully would have tried to shorten that quote, but I think just about everything you said there is important, VT, and I agree with it all. This is exactly what I'm trying to get at here, and thank you for helping me along the way. That's a very terse and reliable way of putting it. This isn't Africa. I guess that's a nice way of saying it's the parent's fault. In fact, essentially, that's what your whole post is aiming at, VT, and thanks for sharing something I didn't have the cheek to say straight out.

Originally posted by: DOXXP29nor did I ever have the desire to have any.quote>

Yeah, but imagine that suddenly you landed with a couple. What would you do?

[Mikemat5150 0]

I say people with an IQ of 100 or lower should be steralized. Most children learn through example or of figuring stuff out like "I wonder what will happen when I touch a hot stove. Ouch. I'm not going to do that again." That stuff. And spanking never hurt a kid it taught them that are a consicuences to their actions and such.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Mikemat5150 I say people with an IQ of 100 or lower should be steralized.quote>

Several IQ test makers have said that the goal is to make a standardized test that the majority of the American population will score roughly 100 points on.  If you used that standard, depending on the test you used, you could easily find the majority of your population pending mandatory sterilization, yet alone the fact that you've opened the Pandora's box of enabling the government to force you to undergo medical procedures.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Mikemat5150 I say people with an IQ of 100 or lower should be steralized. Most children learn through example or of figuring stuff out like "I wonder what will happen when I touch a hot stove. Ouch. I'm not going to do that again." That stuff. And spanking never hurt a kid it taught them that are a consicuences to their actions and such.quote>

We'll start with you, shall we?

*gets out his soldering iron*

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[zane900 1]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa People today are too stuck on learning formulas, not learning how to use their minds.quote>

I agree. All the kids in my class know that 2 to the 2nd power is 4. Only half of them know why.

IQing has nothing to do with it. I could take a graduate school major in computer science and still know nothing about parenting. I could quit high school in 10th grade, take a couple of parenting classes, and know much more than that other Zane Friedman when it comes to parenting.

Personally, I think our cyber-parents do a mighty fine job!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mikemat5150 And spanking never hurt a kid it taught them that are a consicuences to their actions and such.quote>

I beg to differ, from personal experience. When I was younger, my mother used to hit me (and my sisters) as a form of punishment. After all, her parents did it to her, their parents did it to them, etc.

But she then stopped when she came to the realization that she was setting a bad example. Both me and my sisters were developing problems with hitting people when we got angry with them as opposed to "using our words". By hitting us as a form of punishment, she had inadvertently been teaching us that it was okay to hit people.

Now, I know that there's a big difference between a parent hitting a child as punishment and two children (or adults) hitting each other in a fight. The trouble is that you can't expect young kids to understand the distinction. After all, as young kids, me and my sisters didn't.

"Consequences to actions" may be the intent, but the fact remains that when a parent hits their kids they teach them that violence is okay (even thought they obviously don't mean to). That's why you should never use violence against your children as a form of punishment. They learn the wrong lessons from it.

----------------------------

As for sterilization based on IQ, there's a big problem with that other than the obvious ones. See, no matter what sort of IQ test you use, across the board you generally see white kids perform better on them than minority kids (this is why so many people don't like IQ tests, they claim they're biased), so one could also look upon such measures as a form of racial genocide.

Of course, the reality is a bit different. The tests aren't biased (what's the likelihood they're all biased the same way, after all?), the trouble is that any actual evidence that possibly suggests white superiority is immediately considered foul. The mistake is that race itself is not the cause of the discrepancies, it's class and quality of upbringing. Whites perform better on these tests because they tend to grow up in households with more money and more affluence than those of minorities (this is a leftover from old racist policies which simply hasn't had time to correct itself yet). If there were a society where you had a lot of rich, well-off minority families and mostly poor, working class white families, the tests would seem to bias the opposite way.

Because, let's face it, it's no secret that families with more money at their disposal get their kids a higher quality upbringing since they can afford more... not to mention that well off parents generally means smart, responsible parents, and that will rub off on the kids both genetically and through experience.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hamsterTK 93]

eh, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it

As for people being sterilized, anyone who willfully chops off a fellow man's nuts shall be tortured to death by means of electrical cord, hot nails, and lots and lots of squirrels. After which his body shall be hung to rot along the side of the road giving a clear warning what the consequences are.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa There is nothing wrong with spanking. Children are little, wild animals.quote>

Listen to what you just said. You referred to human beings as "wild animals". Looking upon kids as beasts that need to be controlled as opposed to immature humans who need to be raised and taught the ways of life is a bad attitude to take.

It takes a bit of bum-pain to make them see the error of their ways. quote>

But, as I've said, it fails to teach lessons properly. It teaches kids "don't do this because mommy will spank me if I do", not "don't do this because it's wrong".

Spanking is not child abuse.quote>

It's violence between people. If I go and hit someone on the street who's doing something I view as wrong, I get arrested for Assault. I fail to see how going and hitting my kid is any different.

Children know when they are misbehaving,quote>

It varies from kid to kid and from situation to situation. Sometimes they don't. This is part of why there's no cookbook recipe for parenting. Every child is unique, and must be raised according to their own unique situation.

and there is no better way to correct their behavior than a threat to "go to the bathroom", for example, in a restaurant.quote>

True, it is very effective at correcting behavior, but it's the wrong way to go about it since there are plenty of other negative "side effects" associated with it.

I thank my mother and grandmother for spanking me, when I was being obtuse. It taught me a lesson. I began to think about what I was doing, and began to appreciate the consequences of my actions, LOL. quote>

Okay, so it worked for you. But you're the exception, not the rule. Most kids are better raised by other means. The problem is that hitting kids is the quick, simple, easy way of dealing with problems. Any parent can do it and do it fast. On the other hand, making used of better, more effective methods requires significantly more brain power, thought, and effort on the parents' part. So naturally a lot of parents default to hitting out of laziness, lack of intelligence, or some combination of the two. A proper parent who cares about their kids and is wiling to give the job the full effort it requires should never have to resort to violence.

Of course, there's another issue here, and that's working mothers. When both parents in a house work, they have a lot less time to devote to raising the kids and thus don't put in as much effort and do a sloppy job of it. Besides, children need exposure to their parents. The more time they spend together, the better. For this reason, it's actually bad for the kids to have both parents have jobs. It doesn't have to be the mother, but one of the parents really should stay at home and play the role of homemaker, for the sake of the kids. It's better for them to go home and get the love and care of a parent as opposed to just the dealing with of a nanny. Once the kids are older and more capable of handling themselves (the youngest being a teenager), then it becomes less necessary and the other parent can go get a job if they want.

Point being: raising kids/homemeaking in and of itself is a job. One of the parents has to do it, otherwise they're being irresponsible and slacking on their duty as parents.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa There is nothing wrong with spanking. Children are little, wild animals. It takes a bit of bum-pain to make them see the error of their ways. Spanking is not child abuse. quote>

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. spanking is a word created to justify hitting a child. Twist it however you want, it's still hitting a defenseless toddler. If one can't control their child through their  voice and appropriate punishments, they shouldn't be in control of them.

But like you said, there's no manual to parenting.. thats just my thoughts on it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Joesocwork 4]

Regarding adoption: Actually what children deserve and are entitled to is permanence be it with their biological family, relative, fictive kin, or adoptive nonrelatives who will love and care for them and assist them in the growing up process.

Regarding discipline: I believe the key is age appropriate rules, limits, and consequences. Even though children and adolescents tend to test limits they tend to develop security and self confidence when there are safe reliable boundaries they can depend on. Parents do their children no favors when they don't enforce their rules so that their children will "be friends with them". The key is to make the rules and the consequences to breaking the rules age appropriate, understandable, and consistent.

[ShortStraw 1]

Very well said Joesocwork.

Regarding the idea of temporary sterilization until potential parents can prove they're up to the task of parenting, what made me finally decide it wasn't a worthy idea is the good people I've known who were unintentional pregnancies and those who have unworthy parents.  I know a few people who turned out alright despite "clumsy" upbringing.  I also have known worthless people who had good parents that tried to do the right thing.

The idea is  orderly and logical and tidy and it couldn't possibly work because life is chaotic and random and messy.  Besides, it would give the government an awful lot of control over our reproductive rights and I can't really support that.  The whole thing gets into Orwellian "1984" or "Gattica" territory.

I suspect that the only realistic way to reduce instances of child abuse is through education.  Educating people about good parenting skills won't stop malicious abuse or the sort of "Willfully Ignorant" abuse Zane900 refers to with the vegan couple but it seems the only real hope. 

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

BeebsI've said it before, and I'll say it again.. spanking is a word created to justify hitting a child.quote>

I don't think semantics are in play. However, I would say that I do not wish to give the impression that spanking is a tool of the first resort. While I say that spanking is okay to do, it does not equate to a regular method of punishment. If a child is told to not raid the cookie jar, but does so, I do not think spanking is an appropriate response. There is always 'time-out', and there is the dreaded 'grounding'. There is also 'no dessert' and 'no TV' (which a child shouldn't have access to, anyway, IMO). Spanking is a last resort. Technically, yes, it is hitting. Practically, though, it is a method of harmless discipline. Also note that I differentiate spanking from belting. Belting IS abuse, spanking does no harm, but it has a very strong mental effect on the child. Regardless, I am glad that some understand that there are different methods to parenting.

Barbarossa

quote>

I dunno.. Inflicting pain in order to get your child to listen to you just seems wrong to me. Spanking is for the most part harmless because, like you said, it's in a 'padded' area, but still. There's better ways to teach children whats right and whats wrong than that. IMO, of course.