Question:
> Well the street where it happened is very quiet and has a > speedlimit of 20 km/h or about 12 m/h. So the jeopardy part was > not that uncomfortable but still I wanted to get to the sidewalk > as fast as possible so I told her that if she wouldn’t move right > away I would get off my bike and either would carry her off her > bike to the sidewalk or would drag her with bike and all. If in > the mean time a car would pass and wreck one of the bikes in the > street that would mean a very long time before we could go on our > next trip.
Sure sounds logical to me! Good work, Antoon.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : >>The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless > : >>dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to > : >>run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? > : > > : Ron responds: > : >Have you ever observed a truly vicious child, with escape experience, > : >obsessed with performing a dangerous action as only a 2.7 year old can > : >be, kicking the groin and kneecaps, gouging off skin, head butting, > : >taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth, dropping out of his > : >shirt and all the other things a violently obsessed child can do? > : >It’s not a matter of putting your arms around him, (he knows that > : >one, and several counter moves) it’s not a matter of speaking to him, > : >it’s not a matter of leashing him (only a padlock and stout chain > : >would keep him from getting away, and that’s going to cause as much > : >political trouble as spanking him) and it’s not a matter of keeping him > : >away from any and all streets (which would make him and you virtual > : >prisoners). He’s going to keep his eyes open and figure out the best > : >time to make a break for it. > : Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child… > : "truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this > : father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the > : groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his > : teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual > : who describes his little toddler in such a manner? > Maybe just an honest one who although he loves his kid dearly > will not let this love blind him for the facts. > : > : >This is bad enough when you’re one on one, but when you also have > : >another child to keep track of, it rapidly gets impossible. Not to > : >mention that your groceries (or whatever) stay where you dropped them > : >until you get control of the situation. Yes, I used that nasty > : >word "control". With a delivery truck bearing down and a child > : >determined with every ounce of his being to stay in it’s path, there > : >is no further room for negotiation. If you feel otherwise, try > : >it sometime. Not with my kid. > : If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler > : to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the > : delivery truck. > But getting is not enough. He has to get him firm enough so there > is no chance of escape. What good is getting him, if he escapes 5 > seconds after and still runs under the truck. A spank has a far > greater chance of the kid stopping his resistance.
Getting into a battle with a child in the path of an oncoming truck isn’t a real good idea to me. Get the child firmly enough and don’t waste time hitting. Remove him from the scene. A slap is no assurance that the child won’t escape 5 seconds later. As a matter of fact, it could very well escalate the situation and make matters even worse.
Response:
>: Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child… >: "truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this >: father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the >: groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his >: teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual >: who describes his little toddler in such a manner? >Maybe just an honest one who although he loves his kid dearly >will not let this love blind him for the facts.
So you think words like "vicious" and "violently obsessed" are factual descriptions of a little child 2.7 years old? You think toddlers are capable of viciousness? >: If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler >: to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the >: delivery truck. >But getting is not enough. He has to get him firm enough so there >is no chance of escape. What good is getting him, if he escapes 5 >seconds after and still runs under the truck. A spank has a far >greater chance of the kid stopping his resistance.
He 2.7 years old, for heaven sakes! We aren’t talking about 100-200 pound raging animal, in spite of what the vicious description implies. If this grown man is incapable of holding onto his toddler, it seems obvious to me that he should not be taking him places where there is traffic–or much of anything else. Unfortunately, many think as you do, that spanking will keep the child safer. Because of the lack of impulse control, desire for autonomy, and extremely limited understanding of cause and effect, it is easy to become lulled into thinking that that spanking will effectively allow the child to control his/her behavior. It’s dangerous thinking! LaVonne
Response:
: >: Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child… : >: "truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this : >: father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the : >: groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his : >: teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual : >: who describes his little toddler in such a manner? : > : >Maybe just an honest one who although he loves his kid dearly : >will not let this love blind him for the facts. : So you think words like "vicious" and "violently obsessed" are factual : descriptions of a little child 2.7 years old? You think toddlers : are capable of viciousness? May be some toddlers. I don’t rule out the possibility. : >: If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler : >: to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the : >: delivery truck. : > : >But getting is not enough. He has to get him firm enough so there : >is no chance of escape. What good is getting him, if he escapes 5 : >seconds after and still runs under the truck. A spank has a far : >greater chance of the kid stopping his resistance. : He 2.7 years old, for heaven sakes! We aren’t talking about 100-200 : pound raging animal, in spite of what the vicious description implies. : If this grown man is incapable of holding onto his toddler, it seems : obvious to me that he should not be taking him places where there is : traffic–or much of anything else. Of course he is capable of holding on to his toddler if you give hime enough time to do it. But time was what was lacking here. Or are you going to claim all first attempts to get and hold a kid 2.7 year old should succeed and that something is wrong with the parent when he fails in such an attempt. : Unfortunately, many think as you do, that spanking will keep the : child safer. Because of the lack of impulse control, desire for : autonomy, and extremely limited understanding of cause and effect, : it is easy to become lulled into thinking that that spanking will : effectively allow the child to control his/her behavior. It’s : dangerous thinking! I’m sorry but I don’t reallu understand this. Who’s lack of im- pulse control etc are you talking about. The child or the parent? — All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
Response:
: >>The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless : >>dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to : >>run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? : > : Ron responds: : >Have you ever observed a truly vicious child, with escape experience, : >obsessed with performing a dangerous action as only a 2.7 year old can : >be, kicking the groin and kneecaps, gouging off skin, head butting, : >taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth, dropping out of his : >shirt and all the other things a violently obsessed child can do? : >It’s not a matter of putting your arms around him, (he knows that : >one, and several counter moves) it’s not a matter of speaking to him, : >it’s not a matter of leashing him (only a padlock and stout chain : >would keep him from getting away, and that’s going to cause as much : >political trouble as spanking him) and it’s not a matter of keeping him : >away from any and all streets (which would make him and you virtual : >prisoners). He’s going to keep his eyes open and figure out the best : >time to make a break for it. : Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child… : "truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this : father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the : groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his : teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual : who describes his little toddler in such a manner? Maybe just an honest one who although he loves his kid dearly will not let this love blind him for the facts. : : >This is bad enough when you’re one on one, but when you also have : >another child to keep track of, it rapidly gets impossible. Not to : >mention that your groceries (or whatever) stay where you dropped them : >until you get control of the situation. Yes, I used that nasty : >word "control". With a delivery truck bearing down and a child : >determined with every ounce of his being to stay in it’s path, there : >is no further room for negotiation. If you feel otherwise, try : >it sometime. Not with my kid. : If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler : to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the : delivery truck. But getting is not enough. He has to get him firm enough so there is no chance of escape. What good is getting him, if he escapes 5 seconds after and still runs under the truck. A spank has a far greater chance of the kid stopping his resistance. — All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
Response:
: The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless : dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to : run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? Who said anything about a "busy street"? At the point where I was with "running into the road" we were living in a basment aparment in a houde with no yard. The house had a wondefully large drive way. At the end of the drive way was a street. A street is a street. it only takes one car to hit a kid. : This seems like a sick power game sometimes, like putting a cookie in front of : a small child, telling him not to eat it, making him look at it for ages, and : then punishing him (by any means) when he does eat it. When children are : capable of understanding that they must not run into the street, then they can : be allowed near streets. Until then, it is purely your responsibility, not : theirs, to prevent them from getting hurt. Agreed, (about the responsibility) That is why we had rule about how far down the dirveway the children could play, and enforced that rule. A chalkline thast they couldn’t cross. At one point Mike walked right down the the line and turned around and came up to me and said "See I know where the boundry is" IF we watedtill the understood who knows how long it might have been. : Do none of the pro-spanking posters have fenced in back yards? I could say something really snide here, but I will resist. : Rebecca, who can’t imagine thinking I have the right to ritually hurt anyone. — Heather Right now I’m having Amnesia and deja vu at the same time, I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Response:
This was a wonderful post LaVonne!! I loved it! On 21 Jun 1996, LaVonne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless >>dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to >>run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? > Ron responds: >Have you ever observed a truly vicious child, with escape experience, >obsessed with performing a dangerous action as only a 2.7 year old can >be, kicking the groin and kneecaps, gouging off skin, head butting, >taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth, dropping out of his >shirt and all the other things a violently obsessed child can do? >It’s not a matter of putting your arms around him, (he knows that >one, and several counter moves) it’s not a matter of speaking to him, >it’s not a matter of leashing him (only a padlock and stout chain >would keep him from getting away, and that’s going to cause as much >political trouble as spanking him) and it’s not a matter of keeping him >away from any and all streets (which would make him and you virtual >prisoners). He’s going to keep his eyes open and figure out the best >time to make a break for it. > Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child…"truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this > father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the > groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his > teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual > who describes his little toddler in such a manner? >This is bad enough when you’re one on one, but when you also have >another child to keep track of, it rapidly gets impossible. Not to >mention that your groceries (or whatever) stay where you dropped them >until you get control of the situation. Yes, I used that nasty >word "control". With a delivery truck bearing down and a child >determined with every ounce of his being to stay in it’s path, there >is no further room for negotiation. If you feel otherwise, try >it sometime. Not with my kid. > If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler > to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the > delivery truck. >I’ve whacked my child fewer times than the fingers of one hand, but each >time it was to get the kid’s attention, break the obsessive behavior, >long enough to get out of harm’s way. This is no power game, it’s a >desire to see my child grow up the rest of the way. If there’s no >immediate danger, I will try reason or wrestling techniques. But in the >face of severe bodily injury, I stop caring about what others might think >regarding corporal punishment. > Have you thought of not putting him in situations where he will face > severe bodily injury? If you cannot handle the situation at the > grocery store, don’t take your children to the grocery store. Same > holds true for other situations. I’m also wondering how much you > understand children, especially toddler development and the meaning > of tantrums? >It’s your right to disagree, and your right to raise your kids according >to your own principles. I hope for your sake that you don’t end up with >a child that’s exceptionally strong willed, because there’s a good chance >you’ll find yourself in a situation you won’t allow yourself to handle. >At the funeral, you can say "I never raised a hand against him, not once >in his entire life". > I never hit my children, but I do remember the days when I simply > did not take the younger to the grocery store, especially when she > was hungry. I remember other places and situations she simply could > not handle, so we postponed those activities until she was older. > I remember well the tantrums, etc. And, I consciously remember making > decisions on what was safe and what wasn’t safe, and anticipating > and trying my best to avoid problems. No, she wasn’t viscious or > violently obsessed, she was a very strong willed little child with > a mind of her own. She’s now 13, an excellent student, active in > track and various camps. She’s strong-willed, independent, and > outspoken. That strong will of hers is serving her well, for she > channels the energy she used to pour into tantrums into her school, > her track meets, and her other activities. Interestingly enough, > I didn’t have to hit her nor attend her funeral. I kept her safe. > LaVonne
*Leave the "trying" to those anticipating failure.* o / __o __| / |__ o__ o / | / ___o o | o/ o/___ / | / | /) | ( /o / ) | ( / | / Peyton’s Mommy since 12-20-94
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless >dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to >run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? Ron responds: >Have you ever observed a truly vicious child, with escape experience, >obsessed with performing a dangerous action as only a 2.7 year old can >be, kicking the groin and kneecaps, gouging off skin, head butting, >taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth, dropping out of his >shirt and all the other things a violently obsessed child can do? >It’s not a matter of putting your arms around him, (he knows that >one, and several counter moves) it’s not a matter of speaking to him, >it’s not a matter of leashing him (only a padlock and stout chain >would keep him from getting away, and that’s going to cause as much >political trouble as spanking him) and it’s not a matter of keeping him >away from any and all streets (which would make him and you virtual >prisoners). He’s going to keep his eyes open and figure out the best >time to make a break for it.
Note the words this man uses to describe his 2.7 year old child…"truly vicious"…"violently obsessed"…"escape experience"…note this father’s description of his little child’s behavior.."kicking in the groin".."gouging off skin"…"taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth." What type of parenting would one expect from an individual who describes his little toddler in such a manner? >This is bad enough when you’re one on one, but when you also have >another child to keep track of, it rapidly gets impossible. Not to >mention that your groceries (or whatever) stay where you dropped them >until you get control of the situation. Yes, I used that nasty >word "control". With a delivery truck bearing down and a child >determined with every ounce of his being to stay in it’s path, there >is no further room for negotiation. If you feel otherwise, try >it sometime. Not with my kid.
If you can get to that "vicious…violently obsessed" little toddler to hit him, you can also get to him to remove him from the path of the delivery truck. >I’ve whacked my child fewer times than the fingers of one hand, but each >time it was to get the kid’s attention, break the obsessive behavior, >long enough to get out of harm’s way. This is no power game, it’s a >desire to see my child grow up the rest of the way. If there’s no >immediate danger, I will try reason or wrestling techniques. But in the >face of severe bodily injury, I stop caring about what others might think >regarding corporal punishment.
Have you thought of not putting him in situations where he will face severe bodily injury? If you cannot handle the situation at the grocery store, don’t take your children to the grocery store. Same holds true for other situations. I’m also wondering how much you understand children, especially toddler development and the meaning of tantrums? >It’s your right to disagree, and your right to raise your kids according >to your own principles. I hope for your sake that you don’t end up with >a child that’s exceptionally strong willed, because there’s a good chance >you’ll find yourself in a situation you won’t allow yourself to handle. >At the funeral, you can say "I never raised a hand against him, not once >in his entire life".
I never hit my children, but I do remember the days when I simply did not take the younger to the grocery store, especially when she was hungry. I remember other places and situations she simply could not handle, so we postponed those activities until she was older. I remember well the tantrums, etc. And, I consciously remember making decisions on what was safe and what wasn’t safe, and anticipating and trying my best to avoid problems. No, she wasn’t viscious or violently obsessed, she was a very strong willed little child with a mind of her own. She’s now 13, an excellent student, active in track and various camps. She’s strong-willed, independent, and outspoken. That strong will of hers is serving her well, for she channels the energy she used to pour into tantrums into her school, her track meets, and her other activities. Interestingly enough, I didn’t have to hit her nor attend her funeral. I kept her safe. LaVonne
Response:
: You always raise such interesting points <g>. I agree that : the best we can do is eliminate risks when possible and : otherwise minimize what we reasonably can. I have to say : that the particular situation you describe (parent and child : in jeopardy) is one where a parent’s resolve not to hit : would really be put to the test. Glad you brought it up! : BTW, how did you get her to finish crossing the intersection? Well the street where it happened is very quiet and has a speedlimit of 20 km/h or about 12 m/h. So the jeopardy part was not that uncomfortable but still I wanted to get to the sidewalk as fast as possible so I told her that if she wouldn’t move right away I would get off my bike and either would carry her off her bike to the sidewalk or would drag her with bike and all. If in the mean time a car would pass and wreck one of the bikes in the street that would mean a very long time before we could go on our next trip. — All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
Response:
>The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless >dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to >run into a busy street. Is this really so complex?
Rebecca, do you *have* children? Do you chain them to you when you take them out to the car? Remember, you can’t leave them in the car alone, and you also can’t leave them in the house alone, even for a second. They have to accompany you to and from the car along with anything else you might be carrying. How do you manage? Have you ever observed a truly vicious child, with escape experience, obsessed with performing a dangerous action as only a 2.7 year old can be, kicking the groin and kneecaps, gouging off skin, head butting, taking flesh off your forearms with his teeth, dropping out of his shirt and all the other things a violently obsessed child can do? It’s not a matter of putting your arms around him, (he knows that one, and several counter moves) it’s not a matter of speaking to him, it’s not a matter of leashing him (only a padlock and stout chain would keep him from getting away, and that’s going to cause as much political trouble as spanking him) and it’s not a matter of keeping him away from any and all streets (which would make him and you virtual prisoners). He’s going to keep his eyes open and figure out the best time to make a break for it. This is bad enough when you’re one on one, but when you also have another child to keep track of, it rapidly gets impossible. Not to mention that your groceries (or whatever) stay where you dropped them until you get control of the situation. Yes, I used that nasty word "control". With a delivery truck bearing down and a child determined with every ounce of his being to stay in it’s path, there is no further room for negotiation. If you feel otherwise, try it sometime. Not with my kid. I’ve whacked my child fewer times than the fingers of one hand, but each time it was to get the kid’s attention, break the obsessive behavior, long enough to get out of harm’s way. This is no power game, it’s a desire to see my child grow up the rest of the way. If there’s no immediate danger, I will try reason or wrestling techniques. But in the face of severe bodily injury, I stop caring about what others might think regarding corporal punishment. It’s your right to disagree, and your right to raise your kids according to your own principles. I hope for your sake that you don’t end up with a child that’s exceptionally strong willed, because there’s a good chance you’ll find yourself in a situation you won’t allow yourself to handle. At the funeral, you can say "I never raised a hand against him, not once in his entire life". Ron — – "The UNIX wars are over. UNIX lost."
Response:
The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? This seems like a sick power game sometimes, like putting a cookie in front of a small child, telling him not to eat it, making him look at it for ages, and then punishing him (by any means) when he does eat it. When children are capable of understanding that they must not run into the street, then they can be allowed near streets. Until then, it is purely your responsibility, not theirs, to prevent them from getting hurt. Do none of the pro-spanking posters have fenced in back yards? Rebecca, who can’t imagine thinking I have the right to ritually hurt anyone.
Response:
You said this quite well. My sentiments exactly! Paula
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The most fundamental, straightforward response to this apparently ageless > dilemma is simple. Do not put your children in the position of being able to > run into a busy street. Is this really so complex? > This seems like a sick power game sometimes, like putting a cookie in front of > a small child, telling him not to eat it, making him look at it for ages, and > then punishing him (by any means) when he does eat it. When children are > capable of understanding that they must not run into the street, then they can > be allowed near streets. Until then, it is purely your responsibility, not > theirs, to prevent them from getting hurt. > Do none of the pro-spanking posters have fenced in back yards? > Rebecca, who can’t imagine thinking I have the right to ritually hurt anyone.
Response:
You always raise such interesting points <g>. I agree that the best we can do is eliminate risks when possible and otherwise minimize what we reasonably can. I have to say that the particular situation you describe (parent and child in jeopardy) is one where a parent’s resolve not to hit would really be put to the test. Glad you brought it up! BTW, how did you get her to finish crossing the intersection? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Sure, I have no problem with how you deal with the situation. I >just wanted to react to the impression someone gave me that you >should/can prevent all risks by carefully monitoring the kids. I >have a 6 year old daughter and a 3 year old son. Both love to >bike. The problem is either I accompany them on foot in which >case I’m almost continously running or I accompany them on my >bike which doesn’t help in monitoring them either. There are a >number of rules and when an important safety rule gets broken the >penalty is continue on foot next to their bike. >Now this is not spanking but it is still a reaction to the >transgression of a rule. The previous poster seemed to implicite- >ly suggest I shouldn’t go biking with my kids because it is ex- >tremely difficult to actually prevent something from happening. >And of course this doesn’t help when my daughter gets in into her >head to challenge a rule (which I don’t mind in itself) and stops >to do just this in the middle of the street we are crossing. >There I was next to my girl both on a bike in the middle of the >street. You don’t just lift her and carry her to the sidewalk in >that kind of situations. I was able to convince her it wasn’t the >appropiate place to discuss this but frankly a swat to get her >off the street was seriously considered. >Of course biking was canceled for the rest of the day and I again >explained the importance of a number of rules and of course added >rule number ONE: No discussions while on the street. >But after all this should I stop biking with my kids because of >these diffuculties in monitoring and actually preventing prob- >lems. I don’t think so. I choose the least dangerous and the most >quiet routes possible and in otherways try to minimize the >dangers and for the rest try to live with the risks one has to >take to make life enjoyable and I think this is a healthy atti- >tude and so I react when someone seems to suggest we should be >100% in control in some situations.
Response:
:> Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a :> dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at :> the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then :> three sure seems to be out of the question. :> :Hi Antoon, :Well, I have 4 children and at one time all under age 5. The twins :are the oldest. I was a stay at home mom until the youngest child :was 2 so I had plenty of time to work on teaching the kids safety. :Also, kids are different and what worked for us might not work for 
thers. We developed a method of hand holding and being responsible :for the other person as our way of coping. We minimized contact with :particularly dangerous areas as much as possible and gradually worked :up to them. But I knew my limitations too and knew that a dangerous :intersection with 4 little kids was asking for trouble. Our method :worked extremely well, but it wasn’t perfect. Kids are drawn to :interesting things, so there is always the danger that they will :run off without a moment’s notice. Being responsible for a sibling :sort of minimizes the other distractions but doesn’t eliminate them. :You have to constantly stress safety with the kids and protect them :as much as you can. I think she’s right, Antoon. You can start at the park with your first born teaching safe behavior, then add the next born. Then you can graduate to more and more dangerous environments (which are still fairly safe,) teaching more safety.
Response:
> : If you can reach a child to hit him, you can reach him to restrain him. > : Firm restraint (not in the form of a hug) with a cool insistent tone of > : voice will work just as well as a smack. Little kids don’t like to be > : restrained any more than they like to be hit. Monitor your child > : carefully in all dangerous places. You can outrun your child. He/she > : will only make it into the street if you aren’t looking. > Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a > dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at > the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then > three sure seems to be out of the question.
That’s what twin strollers and hand-holders are for. And even harnesses, although I never used one. If it hadn’t been for the "twin" style wrist straps (one loop for mom, two straps with loops on the end, one each for the kids’ wrists) I think I would have been housebound when the twins were 2 and the singleton was 5! Marie
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: > Excellent post, Chris. >: > >: > >: > >: > :: I don’t want to be offensive or anything, but the running into the street >: > :: stories really get old. There are just so many other alternatives besides >: > :: hitting. >: > >: > : Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the >: > :street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. >: If you can reach a child to hit him, you can reach him to restrain him.
I know this only works if your near home or if you can leave, but I found that taking my son into the house when he repeatedly tried to run into the street worked well. Nancy W.
Response:
: : If you can reach a child to hit him, you can reach him to restrain him. : : Firm restraint (not in the form of a hug) with a cool insistent tone of : : voice will work just as well as a smack. Little kids don’t like to be : : restrained any more than they like to be hit. Monitor your child : : carefully in all dangerous places. You can outrun your child. He/she : : will only make it into the street if you aren’t looking. : Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a : dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at : the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then : three sure seems to be out of the question. Your point would be valid on the alt.parenting.twins-triplets newsgroup but not in most other cases. There is a relatively brief "window" of development within which running into the street becomes a major issue. Children younger than this "window" are babies who are not mobile enough to place themselves into harm’s way. Children older than this "window" understand the danger of cars and do not require restraint. Hence, unless the family has triplets or has popped babies out with no child spacing in between, physically keeping three toddlers out of the street at once will not be an issue. Chris
Response:
When I felt that my boy was old enough to not have to wear his "walking belt" to cross streets (believe me this was necessary in our big city, especially when I was pregnant with the second baby), we got into a habit of me asking him EVERY time: "Count the cars. How many cars are coming?" Only when the answer was zero (no matter what hurry we were in), did we cross the street. If you can get your child to count the cars, they have a visual awareness of the danger, as opposed to waiting for mom to decide, then pulling their arm to start walking. I use a lot of posts I read here as exercises. (Gee, what WOULD I do if my son started running away?) - Rebecca
Response:
> Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a > dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at > the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then > three sure seems to be out of the question.
Hi Antoon, Well, I have 4 children and at one time all under age 5. The twins are the oldest. I was a stay at home mom until the youngest child was 2 so I had plenty of time to work on teaching the kids safety. Also, kids are different and what worked for us might not work for others. We developed a method of hand holding and being responsible for the other person as our way of coping. We minimized contact with particularly dangerous areas as much as possible and gradually worked up to them. But I knew my limitations too and knew that a dangerous intersection with 4 little kids was asking for trouble. Our method worked extremely well, but it wasn’t perfect. Kids are drawn to interesting things, so there is always the danger that they will run off without a moment’s notice. Being responsible for a sibling sort of minimizes the other distractions but doesn’t eliminate them. You have to constantly stress safety with the kids and protect them as much as you can.
Response:
: > Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a : > dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at : > the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then : > three sure seems to be out of the question. : > : Hi Antoon, : Well, I have 4 children and at one time all under age 5. The twins : are the oldest. I was a stay at home mom until the youngest child : was 2 so I had plenty of time to work on teaching the kids safety. : Also, kids are different and what worked for us might not work for : others. We developed a method of hand holding and being responsible : for the other person as our way of coping. We minimized contact with : particularly dangerous areas as much as possible and gradually worked : up to them. But I knew my limitations too and knew that a dangerous : intersection with 4 little kids was asking for trouble. Our method : worked extremely well, but it wasn’t perfect. Kids are drawn to : interesting things, so there is always the danger that they will : run off without a moment’s notice. Being responsible for a sibling : sort of minimizes the other distractions but doesn’t eliminate them. : You have to constantly stress safety with the kids and protect them : as much as you can. Sure, I have no problem with how you deal with the situation. I just wanted to react to the impression someone gave me that you should/can prevent all risks by carefully monitoring the kids. I have a 6 year old daughter and a 3 year old son. Both love to bike. The problem is either I accompany them on foot in which case I’m almost continously running or I accompany them on my bike which doesn’t help in monitoring them either. There are a number of rules and when an important safety rule gets broken the penalty is continue on foot next to their bike. Now this is not spanking but it is still a reaction to the transgression of a rule. The previous poster seemed to implicite- ly suggest I shouldn’t go biking with my kids because it is ex- tremely difficult to actually prevent something from happening. And of course this doesn’t help when my daughter gets in into her head to challenge a rule (which I don’t mind in itself) and stops to do just this in the middle of the street we are crossing. There I was next to my girl both on a bike in the middle of the street. You don’t just lift her and carry her to the sidewalk in that kind of situations. I was able to convince her it wasn’t the appropiate place to discuss this but frankly a swat to get her off the street was seriously considered. Of course biking was canceled for the rest of the day and I again explained the importance of a number of rules and of course added rule number ONE: No discussions while on the street. But after all this should I stop biking with my kids because of these diffuculties in monitoring and actually preventing prob- lems. I don’t think so. I choose the least dangerous and the most quiet routes possible and in otherways try to minimize the dangers and for the rest try to live with the risks one has to take to make life enjoyable and I think this is a healthy atti- tude and so I react when someone seems to suggest we should be 100% in control in some situations. — All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
Response:
> Excellent post, Chris. > :: I don’t want to be offensive or anything, but the running into the street > :: stories really get old. There are just so many other alternatives besides > :: hitting. > : Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the > :street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it.
If you can reach a child to hit him, you can reach him to restrain him. Firm restraint (not in the form of a hug) with a cool insistent tone of voice will work just as well as a smack. Little kids don’t like to be restrained any more than they like to be hit. Monitor your child carefully in all dangerous places. You can outrun your child. He/she will only make it into the street if you aren’t looking. Phyllis
Response:
: > Excellent post, Chris. : > : > : > : > :: I don’t want to be offensive or anything, but the running into the street : > :: stories really get old. There are just so many other alternatives besides : > :: hitting. : > : > : Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the : > :street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. : If you can reach a child to hit him, you can reach him to restrain him. : Firm restraint (not in the form of a hug) with a cool insistent tone of : voice will work just as well as a smack. Little kids don’t like to be : restrained any more than they like to be hit. Monitor your child : carefully in all dangerous places. You can outrun your child. He/she : will only make it into the street if you aren’t looking. Well this would mean you can’t take more than one kid to a dangerous place. Since you can’t carefully monitor two kids at the same time unless you take them both by the hand. But then three sure seems to be out of the question. — All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
Response:
Excellent post, Chris.
:: I don’t want to be offensive or anything, but the running into the street :: stories really get old. There are just so many other alternatives besides :: hitting. : Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the :street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Below, :I have reposted once again a letter written by Dr. Dennis Embry of the :University of Kansas at Lawrence. : A number of posters have pointed out that children this young :cannot understand dangers such as auto traffic and that it is the :responsibility of parents to keep them safe until they can. Spanking :toddlers for exploratory behavior is unfair, since they need to explore :their environment as a necessary part of their cognitive development.
Response:
Thanks for reposting the article, Chris. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the > street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Below, > I have reposted once again a letter written by Dr. Dennis Embry of the > University of Kansas at Lawrence. > A number of posters have pointed out that children this young > cannot understand dangers such as auto traffic and that it is the > responsibility of parents to keep them safe until they can. Spanking > toddlers for exploratory behavior is unfair, since they need to explore > their environment as a necessary part of their cognitive development. > In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry > writes: > "Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project > designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children. > (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause > of death to young children in the United States.) > "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, > scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries > by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way > to gain parents’ attention. > "Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, > called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are > simple: > 1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe > players play on the grass or sidewalk." > 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun > than playing dangerously. > 3. Praise your child for safe play. > "These three principles have an almost instant effect on > increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked > many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. > The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the > children stopped going into the street. > Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D. > University of Kansas > Lawrence Kansas" > Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact > that some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet. > Hence, when the parent says, "Don’t eat out of the catfood dish!" "Don’t > jump on furniture!" "Don’t go into the street!" the toddler hears, "Eat > out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the street!" > Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of > "catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their > child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be a > person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when they > are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental journey. > Chris
Response:
: I don’t want to be offensive or anything, but the running into the street : stories really get old. There are just so many other alternatives besides : hitting. Not only is hitting unnecessary for keeping tots out of the street, it may even exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Below, I have reposted once again a letter written by Dr. Dennis Embry of the University of Kansas at Lawrence. A number of posters have pointed out that children this young cannot understand dangers such as auto traffic and that it is the responsibility of parents to keep them safe until they can. Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is unfair, since they need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their cognitive development. In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry writes: "Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United States.) "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents’ attention. "Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple: 1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on the grass or sidewalk." 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing dangerously. 3. Praise your child for safe play. "These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children stopped going into the street. Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D. University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas" Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet. Hence, when the parent says, "Don’t eat out of the catfood dish!" "Don’t jump on furniture!" "Don’t go into the street!" the toddler hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the street!" Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of "catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental journey. Chris
Response:
Can you all handle just one more message on this topic? The other day I was coming out of my house, and my two-year-old daughter walked ahead of me towards the driveway bit did not go in the street. (I told her long ago very sternly she was not to go into the street and she’s listened to me. Before this, I had given her a whack on the bottom when she ran away from me in the parking lot of a shopping center while I was unlocking the car.) While I was coming down the driveway myself, I thought about the comments many members of this newsgroup have made about the topic of spanking for running into the street. At that moment, a car came around the corner (I live on a long street in a neighborhood) at the usual 25 mph, and I imagined how in just a SPLIT SECOND, my daughter could tear away from me and run into the street, get hit by the car and die instantly. I can certainly understand a parent’s reaction in grabbing a child that darted into the street and spanking them, after being told several times NOT to run into the street. The way I see it (let’s be REALISTIC here, folks), better a spanking than having to bury your child. Hopefully, it’s just the one spanking that does it. Everyone has their own way of doing things, but I do support the notion of spanking if your precious child runs into the street after being told many times not to. By the way, I have only swatted my child on the behind when safety issues were at hand and that’s only been three times to date. I am not big on spanking, but believe that it will certainly get the child’s attention if used when absolutely necessary, if not, for the child’s safety. (It’s gotten my child’s attention each time and she has NEVER repeated the dangerous situation.) P.S. Please don’t clobber me!! Susan
Response:
<snip post on succesful short term spanking result> That is what spanking can do if done correctly. Needless to say this is only the beginning. I presume that you do go over this with your child and explain why she has to wait at the gate and why she has to hold mummys hand (or ask her to tell you why). She has the desireable outward behaviour. It is essential to ensure that the reasons for this behaviour come from her understanding the reason why. It is a lot easier to reinforce a habit (stopping at the gate) than to break it (running off if not held firmly by mum or dad). And the child has to be moved on to the positive reason why. Not remain on the negative. ..d — * David Martin – Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis research group * * Lab +47 22 95 84 54 Fax +47 22 69 41 30 GSM +47 90 74 27 65 *
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.