SAH/WOH - Why?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
SAH/WOH - Why?
3166
Mon, 02-20-2006 - 7:41am

I am sure this has been done before but I was wondering this in light of recent posts lately.

Why did you decide to sah/woh?

Was it a choice or something expected of you?

Was your plan to sah/woh though out or impulsive? Long-term or short-term?

Pages

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 5:49pm
Yes, it's funny how people think you get a cold from being cold.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 5:52pm
It kind of sounds like my own childhood. I was walking to school with my siblings when I was 5. My kids' school is a mile away, but I couldn't let them walk, and I don't plan to leave my kids home after school when they're in middle school.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 5:59pm

What is not analogous is the RELATIONSHIP. Parents are responsible for the caretaking of children and teaching them how to do/not do certain things. Some parents find that spanking teaches their children to do/not do certain things. Bosses, on the other hand, are not responsible for making sure that their employees learn how to do/not do certain things- they are merely responsible for making sure that certain things get done. If the employees don't/do these things, the boss can cut them loose.

The reason it's not working to try to make analogies between parent>child discipline and adult>adult discipline is because the relationships are not even remotely similar. You can't draw any lessons about what is an appropriate parent>child interaction from observing appropriate adult>adult interactions because the two sets of relationships have nothing in common. Parents SHOULD NOT treat their children exactly as they would any adult- including adults they are bosses of. That's one problem I have with "natural consequences" used in too many situations. It treats the parents>child realtionship as though it were an adult>adult relationship, which is not fair to the child. The natural consequence of running away from parents because something shiny is over there can be injury or death. Spanking is perfectly appropriate in such situations if it scares the child into avoiding behaviour whose dangerous natural consequences they have no hope of understanding until they are much older.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:03pm
So what do you do if your child doesn't want to wear a coat and not going isn't an option? Say, you're taking him to school or to a dr. appt. or an errand you need to run?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:04pm
"What makes the parents so special that they can spank their children in your eyes." IMO, what makes the parents so special is that they are the only people who are actually OBLIGATED to make sure the child behaves a certain way. Every other adult can say "not my problem" if the child acts up too much- schools included. They can simply expell the child. Only parents have the responsibility of dealing with the child no matter WHAT they do. The parent can never- unlike the school- say "this is no longer my problem to deal with". That's what makes parents so special.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:13pm
It can also be a much worse idea than spanking. The price that a child pays for some natural consequences is considerably higher than the price they pay in a spanking. I don't believe that a spanking is the very worst possible thing that can happen to a child. I think that quite a lot of natural consequences are far worse than the spankings some parents give. A pretty obvious example is spanking a child to get them not to do some dangerous thing. The minor but understandably unwanted punishment of a spanking is a far better thing than letting a child suffer the natural consequeunces of their dangerous behaviour. That's why I totally approve of spanking a child who repeatedly breaks away from a parent's grip in the parking lot, climbs up some piece of high furniture or does anything else likely to end in the hospital if not for a fear of a repeat spanking.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:13pm

Leaving aside the boss analogy, I just don't understand why the parent-child relationship makes spanking ok to you. The only justification I've seen offered in this thread is because parents are legally responsible for their children. I don't understand what it is about having power over another person that makes it okay to spank them.

"Parents SHOULD NOT treat their children exactly as they would any adult- including adults they are bosses of. That's one problem I have with "natural consequences" used in too many situations. It treats the parents>child realtionship as though it were an adult>adult relationship, which is not fair to the child. The natural consequence of running away from parents because something shiny is over there can be injury or death. Spanking is perfectly appropriate in such situations if it scares the child into avoiding behaviour whose dangerous natural consequences they have no hope of understanding until they are much older."

I would never let my kids experience the natural consequences of something that is dangerous. That's when you have to be more creative. The natural consequence of running away is that you don't get the opportunity to do it again. When you spank a child, you may hope you have scared them into behaving, but if you give them the opportunity to do it again, you could be wrong. I wouldn't want to rely on fear as a deterrent when there is danger involved, especially since I do not think spanking is effective other than in the short-term.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:18pm
The natural consequence of ignoring a parent's safety order is potentially injury, abduction or death. Little children don't understand death. How are you going to convey to them the natural consequence of breaking the "don't run through the parking lot" rule? Sometimes the fear of a spanking will just have to do until the child is old enough to fear the actual natural consequences of injury, abduction and death.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:20pm

"That's why I totally approve of spanking a child who repeatedly breaks away from a parent's grip in the parking lot, climbs up some piece of high furniture or does anything else likely to end in the hospital if not for a fear of a repeat spanking."

There is no proof that the fear of a repeat spanking will be any better a deterrent than other forms of discipline.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 6:21pm

No one in their right mind would let their child experience the natural consequences of dangerous behavior. I think it would be equally irresponsible to place a child in a potentially dangerous situation relying on a child's fear of being spanked to deter him from making a bad choice.

The whole point of natural and logical consequences is to teach kids to make responsible decisions now as much as they are able, so that when they are making their own decisions later in potentially dangerous situations (drugs, sex, etc.), they will be able to make good choices. Spanking's not going to be any sort of deterrent then, if it even is when kids are little.

Pages