Parental authority

[Ephinie]

All right, this thread is for real... it's not a joke like the aspartame one.

What are the limits of parental authority? How far does it extend? We remove children from abusive families and entrust them to the care of the state (which may not necessarily be better, but that's a debate for a whole different thread). The question is, how far do we go? How closely should individual parenting styles be monitored or regulated by the state?

I was home schooled, and I had to take achievement tests each year so that civil authorities could monitor my progress. If I scored too low on the tests, the theory was that I would no longer be allowed to home school. All the home school families in the area had a HUGE problem with this, and they were indignant at the state's interference. After all, how dare the state try to tell them how to raise their children or try to require anything academically from them? This same thing was an issue in registering children for school. The home school parents in my area did not like the fact that they had to register their children for school. They felt that pretty much any checking up on them that the state did was far out of line. But there ARE laws that say children have to go to school... and they did want to verify that these home schooled children actually WERE doing school.

Another gray area involves certain religious traditions that forbid certain kinds of medical treatments. What happens if the parents are morally opposed to a certain kind of medicine, or perhaps a certain kind of surgery; and their child will most likely die without it? They are willing to allow their child to die rather than violate their spiritual beliefs. Does the state have a right to step in and compel treatment?

Going back to the question of abuse. Of course we think it is appropriate for intervention if a child is being abused. But what constitutes abuse, and who gets to define it? This is not a problem in extreme cases, but what if it is a mild case of abuse? Maybe a parent grabbed their child's arm a little too tightly and left a bruise. After all, children bruise easily, and it wasn't intentional... Where do we draw the line in saying that outside intervention is appropriate?

How about in divorce cases, that necessary evil that, in my book, should be a swear word. Two quarreling parents who cannot agree on custody or child-rearing methods are forced to have the state decide it for them. So we end up with a judge telling two parents, who each have an equal parental right, who gets to keep his or her rights and who has to give them up. Is that right? Can the ruling of a judge really revoke parental rights? I guess this could be applied to cases where teenagers are emancipated for a variety of reasons. Of course, it is legal; so in that sense it is right. But is this morally right?

There are a lot more questions that could be asked in regard to the subject of parental authority and parental rights. I think that for now, this is a good start.

Yeah, watch this thread crash and burn. ;)

[Lucy_QueenofNarnia]

Hm, interesting topic ;) :)

Coming from a kid who is still in her parent's supervision and authority, I think parents usually have the ultimate authority. Its different in all cases. Nearly all the ones you listed have a different extent of authority, I think. So I suppose when you look at it, you've got to address each one differently.

I do think its fair for the state government to require tests for home-schooled students. I go to public school, but like you said, it is the law that kids get an education.

Religious traditions... that one's tougher. I honestly find it hard to believe that a parent would rather their child die than break their beliefs (or course, this is coming from a Christian). Some people may believe that if their child will die without the medication that is forbidden to their religion, than their child is destined to die, simple as that. My thoughts are, government should NEVER control or authorize anything with religion. Whenever the two mix, bad things happen. Just look at what's happening in the Middle East.

Extreme cases of abuse are easy to spot. But in the case of a parent grabbing a child's arm and leaving a bruise, I don't really think that is abuse. If it was a one-time thing, and not something that happened or coincided with any other cases, then it isn't abuse. In the form of punishment, it's a little harder to decide. A child who is constantly misbehaving in a large way deserves to be spanked. As long as parents aren't hitting their children for minor things or doing it often, it isn't abuse. If parents take out their frustration or anger on their kids and harm them, it is.

Honestly, when two parents are divorcing and fighting over custody, if they can't reach a decision about where their kids will live and when they get to spend time with the other parent, then I think the kids are better off with someone else completely. Another relative, perhaps, and then get time to spend with each of their parents until they can reach an agreement about the custody rights. Courts are usually pretty good in deciding which parent should get the rights--but that's only sometimes, and that's when one of the parents has done something wrong. But if there are two parents, both upstanding citizens who treat their kids well and can support them, a court should not decide--the parents either reach an agreement or the kids just live with neither of them. You'd think that if neither parent got the children, they'd at least want to agree so that they'd get visiting rights.

In general, I do think that parents should have more authority over their kids than the government should have the right to intervene. But this is not a black and white subject...I am speaking of the "good" parents and not the ones that abuse or mistreat their children. (Please just use your own assumption of what a good parent is, because that's a whole other topic as well.)

[EveningStar]

Lest I open a can of worms here (didn't know you could buy worms by the can, eh?) let me only make a few brief remarks...

1) You have to get a license to drive a car, practice medicine, or fly an airplane. You don't need a license to bring a human soul into the world, even if you get pregnant at a rock concert by some guy you never saw before and will never see again and you're 16. While I'm not arguing for state control of who can become a parent, I think the state drops the ball where educating potential parents is concerned. Public education that teaches kids HOW to reproduce but not WHY. They teach the dangers of STDs but not the dangers of having a child when you're a teenager and hoping to go go college someday and have a real job. People who make poor lifestyle choices can hardly be expected to make wise choices for their children's lives.

2) If you did not have a good childhood, being a good parent will not come naturally, though through prayer and study you can always give back better than you got.

3) I believe strongly in freedom of religion. And yet this belief itself would compel me to say that no parent has a right to take action that would result in the death of their child. The child has a right to disagree with the parent's religious tradition, and can only legally be expected to exercise that option by living to the age of accountability. I believe anyone 18 and older that wants to refuse medical treatment should be able to do so. I do not think people who are younger should be subject to other people's religions with regard to their access to health care.

Hope this helps.

ES

[Jood]

About abuse, I was spanked all through my childhood. Which I think is a very good discipline tool, and yes my backside went red after the spankings, but not only was the mark outside, it was inside. That switch, along with my parents talk about, "This is what you did wrong.... This is why you are getting spanked..... I'm not mad, but I want you to do this instead of this" taught me to honor my father and my mother, and to obey and be rewarded, disobey and be punished.

[EveningStar]

Elashia,

A typical thoughtful and well expressed post! Thanks.

ES

[broken.]

About abuse, I was spanked all through my childhood. Which I think is a very good discipline tool, and yes my backside went red after the spankings, but not only was the mark outside, it was inside. That switch, along with my parents talk about, "This is what you did wrong.... This is why you are getting spanked..... I'm not mad, but I want you to do this instead of this" taught me to honor my father and my mother, and to obey and be rewarded, disobey and be punished.


I was spanked when I was a child, and I feel like I didn't get any benefit from it at all. My parents would hit me with belt, and then sit me down and explain to me why they spanked me and that they loved me. The whole time they were talking I would sit there and think "if you love me, why are you hitting me?" Even though they said they loved me, I didn't believe them. I just became more and more afraid of my parents. When the punishments were over I'd go lock myself in my room for hours and hide from my parents. I also didn't see the point of them telling me why I was spanked; the spankings always came after threats that were in response to something I was doing wrong. I knew why I was being spanked while I was being spanked.

I honestly don't see the point in spanking. Instead of hitting them and sending them off, parents should try something more constructive with thier kids that can alter the child's behavior and make them better. I don't see how hitting someone makes them act better or be a better person. Child discipline shouldn't just be about punishment, you should try to make the child a little better than the were before they did the thing that required punishment. I don't think spanking accomplishes that.

[LifeMaiden]

Great thread, E.



I grew up in a traditional nuclear household where Mom stayed at home and was active in my school as a den mother with other homemakers, and supervised after school activities. My dad was an engineer worked as a director for a big defense company, Lockheed Space and Missiles, and also had a broker's and real estate lisence. ( sp?). Dad went to work and came home, and Mom always had dinner. So it was traditional.




My parents at one time believed in corporal punishment, but I strongly disagree with it. I don't think kids need to be beaten, slapped, spanked, or hit with objects for parents to have authority or make their point known. Grabbing kids, shaking them...no. I'm opposed to all that. My mother hardly ever spanked me, but she now regrets the few times she did.


(which is something that most Japanese people do not use. In Japan in fact, most families do not believe in corporal punishment. But my parents are totally American, as was my grandmother.)




Personally, for myself, I don't think I benefited from it at all. In fact I think it created in me a lot of anger. My father and I have only recently become closer because I deeply resented his use of occasionally slapping me in his impatience, or spanking me really hard. The sad thing was, discipline was sort of inconsistent in our household. My father never disciplined me for things he SHOULD have, such as the times I threw things in temper tantrums, break toys, or when I would act spoiled ( only child here!!) and throw food at the table. He would laugh and say it was just me acting like a kid.

However, he would punish me for things that I felt should NOT have been punishable....like accidently spilling milk or accidently hitting him with a ball when we played in the park . I grew up thinking, boy, this is crazy. I used to act out all the time at school because there was a tremendous amount of anger in me. It took all this therapy in later years to figure out " I'M ANGRY AT MY FATHER!!" Imagine that!! LOL.


I learned to forgive my parents for whatever transgressions and faults they had when I grew up, because no parent is perfect, and no parent has a book in front of them telling them how to be a perfect parent. Some make better parents than others. I learned later on in life, much later, that my father's own family background was fractured and inconsistent due to remarriages, and so I understand his own shortcomings. I'm not condoning what he did, but I forgive him. Now I wasn't physically beaten up, but I didn't like the times when I was spanked or slapped. I just don't agree with that as a way for parents to exude authority over their kids.


My great grandfather, the Baptist minister, was very strict with his kids, as was his wife, but neither of them used corporal punishment to my knowledge.


Richard Pryor in one of his many comedy skits used to joke about how he was beaten with a switch. I never even knew what a switch was until realizing...whoa...that's a tree branch!!!!

[Ephinie]

Well... I was spanked a lot as a child, and I mean A LOT. I got it tons more than my brothers. I also disagree with spanking as a means of punishment. It never benefited me, and it really only made the situation worse. I would just get angry that I was being spanked, so I would do something to get back at my parents. Then, of course, my parents would get even more frustrated because I was clearly not responding to punishment... so I would get spanked more, act out more, and the cycle continued. The problem was that they didn't seem to realize that I WAS responding to the punishment, it was just in a negative way. They had no creativity at all. If they had understood me or tried to understand what my motivations were for misbehaving in the first place, that would have gone a long way to figuring out an "effective" punishment.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that I could say I don't agree with spanking a child EVER... and this is mostly, I'll admit, because I really would have liked to have seen my two younger brothers get spanked more. They were spanked a little when they were pretty young, but when my parents started going through a divorce, my mom stopped spanking them at all. She was afraid that if she spanked them even once, they might mention it to one of the numerous counselors that they were required to see through the whole process; and then they would get taken away or my father would get custody. So, after a certain point, they were NEVER spanked at all. They picked up on this change in attitude, and their characters definitely suffered for it.

I think the key to punishment with children is to know your children. Each child is different, so each child will respond differently to different punishments. The point of discipline in the first place is to correct inappropriate behavior and to teach children what is right. The point is not to make them angry (though they may get angry at you in the process), nor is it to let them know how angry you are. In fact, I'm somewhat of a fan of the whole delayed punishment idea... You know, like telling your child that you will decide what their punishment is and then tell them later. That way neither parent nor child is emotionally distraught when the punishment is dealt out (in theory). My parents actually did that delayed punishment thing a lot. The only problem was that I mean, sheesh, I already knew the punishment would be spanking EVERY time.

"Okay, you get three spankings for eating the ice cream; and you get five spankings for lying about it. That equals a total of eight spankings. You can have them now or after dinner."

"I never ate the ice cream!"

"That's five more spankings for lying again. Now you have thirteen coming to you."

"I really didn't eat it!"

"Eighteen now. Now turn over, you're getting nine now and nine after dinner, that way you don't have to have them all at once."

This was a fruitless cycle, because ya know... I would never stop insisting that I did not do whatever I was accused of doing; and then they would just keep adding more spankings for the crime of lying. Most of the time I was telling the truth; but there were a few times when I would lie and stick to the lie till the bitter end, just because I was so angry at being spanked for something trivial. Or, in some cases, I would go and DO the thing I had been punished for AFTER being spanked because my logic was simply, hey... I just got spanked for stealing ice cream. I might as well enjoy the ice cream now!

Also, I bet I'm the only person on this board who was spanked until the age of seventeen. I'm not joking about that, either. My mom, for whatever reason that I still cannot fathom, persisted in her belief that spanking was an effective means of punishment for me all throughout my teenage years. Every time it happened, I would ask,

"Why are we even going through this? You're way too weak to make this hurt... even if you had a riding crop." And she would say,

"The point isn't to make it hurt; it's to humiliate you." She even threatened to spank me once when I was eighteen. It was like two weeks before I left home for college. I just raised my eyebrows at her, turned around, and walked out the front door. Then (because I didn't have a car), I walked to the park and sat in the park until one of my brothers was sent to fetch me.

So anyways, the point of these pointless ramblings is that: spanking for me = not good or effective in the least. I just don't know that I can say spanking is not good for anyone.

For two and a half years, I went to a Baptist Christian school. When I was in eighth grade, there were a few high school guys on the basketball team who did something (not sure exactly what it was). They were like juniors and seniors. Well, the coach didn't want to have them suspended because it would lower their grades; and they needed good grades in order to stay on the team... and yeah, well, they were some of the BEST players. So for punishment, he had a school assembly. Then, with the entire school watching, he had the boys bend over the bleachers with their backsides exposed and he spanked them all at once with a two by four. While I don't think this was actually appropriate, it sure was funny! It was also a lot more effective than suspending them from school...

Another funny punishment story at my school happened when these boys made a blow torch out of a can of lysol and a lighter. I sat in the very back of the classroom with them (curse assigned seating charts!). So they aimed this blow torch at me and set my hair on fire! The teacher finally noticed the commotion and made them come up front. After having them turn in their lighters, he read slowly and out loud the part on the can where it says,

"Extremely flammable. Do not use near open flame." Then, after stating that they did not know how to read, he said he wanted to help them fix that problem. They were sent to the kindergarten class the next day, and it counted on their academic record as a suspension. That, I think, is one of the most creative punishments I have ever seen.

Well, okay... I think I've gotten a little off topic here. I've gone on and on about spanking; but the real question is not whether or not spanking is appropriate. The question, I guess, is should parents have the authority to spank their children, even if others of us think it is wrong to spank?

[LifeMaiden]

Yes, I think parents should have that right reserved.

I sometimes think that some young people have gotten so disrespectful of elders, their teachers and parents, that maybe some of that spanking might have done some good. LOL. As an only child I couldn't witness anyone else but me getting the spanks LOL and if something got broken, who was I to blame it on? :D ( NO! JOEY DID IT! LAURA DID IT!!)


A little off topic here, but do you remember the news story, E, about that kid in Singapore who was corporally punished ( well not spanked, but CANED) in public for defacing those cars with graffiti? I bet he never took a can of paint to a car again!!

[Ephinie]

A little off topic here, but do you remember the news story, E, about that kid in Singapore who was corporally punished ( well not spanked, but CANED) in public for defacing those cars with graffiti? I bet he never took a can of paint to a car again!!No, I never heard that story... wow. Yeah, I bet that cured him of graffiti all right!

And I, personally, do agree that parents should have the right to spank their children, even if they are wrong. Just as long as it does not get to the point where it becomes so excessive that it could be considered abuse... But I guess that's another point of this thread; where is that line drawn? Spanking someone on the bottom with a wooden spoon or a belt is one thing. Beating them with a riding crop or some other object that leaves bruises in vital areas is entirely different. I mean, if you spank a kid's bottom - even if they are spanked hard enough to leave red marks or bruises - it isn't going to cause any lasting damage (physically, that is). But if ya miss and hit their back, legs, or arms... that can cause problems.

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

Omgsh..awesome thread.

Since I'm really not the typical serious-thread-poster..I'm just going to add some on the whole corporal punishment deal.

I think how parents view corporal punishment depend on their upbringing, religion, status (i.e., middle class, low class, etc.), and, of course, ethnic background.

I live in Miami, which is filled to the brim (so much so that I'm ashamed of the hispanic I have in me..not that I have much, mind you) with Latins.
I remember my mom paying my ex-friendd's mom $100 (ONLY!?!?...I cause much more trouvle than that:rolleyes: ) per weekend (which was typically just a night at her house) to sleepover there, instead of having a boring olde babysitter, since I had...erm, 'problems' with having people over my house (verrrry long, tiring story to explain that, so I'm..not..going..there).
Well, that friend's dad was Columbian, and her mother was Honduran. Middle class. My grandparents we're apalled that I had to stay in such a 'pigsty' (they are a bit racist. Thanks to them, I supposedly am 'blue-blooded'? LOL), and naturally, being their worrying selves, they drove by (I learnt this later) almost every hour, just to speculate. Pssht.
Anyways, I remember her father going around with a leather belt. I wasnt fed anything there. It was BAD. I was made to clean up their rooms. Me, the guest; MY MOM PAYING THEM.
One day, I had it, and I punched the girl (who was the one bossing me to pick up this and that) in the chin, and I ripped her shirt in half. Okay..that felt fantastic. It was so pleasurable. ^_^ But dont try it. +_+ It wasnt the right hting to do, I know...but...I had rage.
And that, my friends, is just one example of what phsycial voilence teaches you: PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!


My mother, is very, very violent. Not physically abusive, but I go to a psychologist with her twice weekly, because of those issues.
The last time we got into a fight was because I called her present boyfriend 'low' (which he is). After I said that she threw her cellphone at my ankle (which hurt) and swerved the car (this was in a car, obviously) sideways, onto another lane. She was red and sweaty and screaming with rage "I'LL KILL US BOTH! I'LL KILL US BOTH!" and I was panicking and grabbing the wheel of the car.
Over time, she slowed down. It was so scary.
But I dont want to sound like I'm complaining here, it's just an example.
That day..I felt like killing her. You gave me a gun, I'd shoot her and her boyfriend. Note; I'm not generally like that..it just really drove me insane, that day.
If she had dealt with that situation in a calmy manner, then I would not have felt that rage towards her..and I wouldnt have ever wanted to strike her back..which I didnt, but I have before.
I've even witnessed my grandmother slapping my mother, and then my mother slapping her back (which Ive done to both of them, btw).


But, as I was saying about ethnicity, I've noticed that LOTS of hispanic families are like this. And this is just one reason why Im ashamed of that one bit of Hispanic in me. (hehe, note how I always strain that it's "bit" of Hispanic)
I truly cannot imagine many Europeans having anything to do with corporal punishment, for that matter.

I don't think corporal punishment is right, at all. It leads a chain reaction.
Us human beings have, since the beginning of time, had the fight or flight response. We need to fight baxck.
Children are also born with it, of course. So what is there to do when your own parent hits you? (no matter how much it hurts--a little or a lot..but if it's as punishment, I mean) Hit back, of course. But you can't. It's, like, criminal if you do (at least in my family).
But, then, if someone else that isn't your parent hits you, you WILL strike back.
And what about the rage that you had to keep inside you when your parent hit you and you werent able to fight back?

^ That's the big problem for me. I've had that rage in me for so long, so long. And I take it out on others. Not good.


So...I really think that families should be teaching non-violence, instead oe enforcing it by using it as punishment.
And I know, for a fact, that almost every family in America wants a non-violent community. Yet, they're hypocritical enough to be teaching it (unconsciously) in their own households?

There is a problem. But, coming from me (teenager here), we (the children), have no way of fighting back.
And don't answer with how I should read the bible...this is a BIG issue. And I know it won't change. But...parents arent even trying.

And It bothers me.

That's all. Sorry for the rather longness..

[Ephinie]

But, as I was saying about ethnicity, I've noticed that LOTS of hispanic families are like this. And this is just one reason why Im ashamed of that one bit of Hispanic in me. (hehe, note how I always strain that it's "bit" of Hispanic)
I truly cannot imagine many Europeans having anything to do with corporal punishment, for that matter. My dad's family was primarily from Sweden and Yugoslovia, and they practised corporal punishment. My mom's family was a mixture of Irish and Cheorkee Indian, and they also practised corporal punishment. So... three out of four of those ethnicities are European in origin. When I was growing up, particularly when I lived in West Virginia, almost every family I knew practised spanking. Something you've gotta understand about West Virginia is that it is almost exclusively white in ethnicity. However, it is also a rather backward area of the country compared with most states, so... you're theory about economic differences could very well have hit the nail on the head.

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

My dad's family was primarily from Sweden and Yugoslovia, and they practised corporal punishment. My mom's family was a mixture of Irish and Cheorkee Indian, and they also practised corporal punishment. So... three out of four of those ethnicities are European in origin. When I was growing up, particularly when I lived in West Virginia, almost every family I knew practised spanking. Something you've gotta understand about West Virginia is that it is almost exclusively white in ethnicity. However, it is also a rather backward area of the country compared with most states, so... you're theory about economic differences could very well have hit the nail on the head.

Yes...well since I live in a place where I've only met about 5 Americans in my whole life, I like to think that it's just us (meaning Hispanics, latins) that are THIS old-fashioned..I mean, if you think about it, corporal punishment is sooo Barberic/Medeival. :p Seriously.

Where to draw the line, though?
I believe that this calls for a flipping of a proverb. It's not quality, but quantity.
If you're being 'abused' again and again, for tihngs that aren't normally punished with physical punishment, and it's starting to interfere with the child's daily life..then, yes, it is wrong.

[LifeMaiden]

Well, if you didn't know, Singapore is one of the cleanest cities with the lowest crime rates in the world. Unfortunately, it is a dictatorship of sorts, with extremely strict rules. You get fined, for example, up to 5,000.00 dollars if you throw a little bit of trashon the street or get caught littering, or six months in jail. You are not ALLOWED to chew gum in shopping malls or public places, at least one of my old college friends from Singapore was telling me.

They are also extremely anti drug. You get caught with hard drugs of any kind and you get executed. There is no trial, and even if you are a US citizen, the US can't do anything about it. You get hung or shot.


I can't help but think, in a sick way, that as a nation, we're a little lax on a lot of things that could help lessen the crime rates. Well, let's take abortion for example! In this country, it's a crime if you kill a dog, but it isn't a crime if you have an abortion and kill an unborn baby. Sort of strange how when I became pro-life, I just started thinking like that...about how hypocritical some of our laws are.


But anyways...this kid was the son of a Singapore diplomat ( stepfather) and his mother was Australian. He was defacing several cars, some of the luxury cars, with graffiti and was caught. Even his stepfather could not intervene with the government's severe punishment. The kid was stripped in public, and hit very hard five times with this bamboo cane, which is extremely painful...some people have passed out from pain after two swipes, and the kid had to have five. It was filmed for the news and everything, probably because he was the son of a prominent man, and taught a hard lesson in public.


I have to say that spanking didn't do ME any good, but, it might be different for other kids. And you're absolutely right about kids being different. I was a rebellious, hyperactive kid, and spanking just made me go out crazy.

[Ephinie]

Yes...well since I live in a place where I've only met about 5 Americans in my whole life, I like to think that it's just us (meaning Hispanics, latins) that are THIS old-fashioned..I mean, if you think about it, corporal punishment is sooo Barberic/Medeival. :p Seriously.

Where to draw the line, though?
I believe that this calls for a flipping of a proverb. It's not quality, but quantity.
If you're being 'abused' again and again, for tihngs that aren't normally punished with physical punishment, and it's starting to interfere with the child's daily life..then, yes, it is wrong.Yes, I agree that spanking seems Medieval... But, then again... we seem to have a lot more problems with children acting out and misbehaving now than in the past. I mean, Michelle was right when she said that children are more disrespectful of authority than they used to be. There are things that go beyond disrespect, though... Have you ever wondered if children who committ crimes might have NOT done them had they been properly punished when they were younger? I mean, I have no statistics for this, but I have the impression that children committ crimes more now than they used to.

Of course, one can't blame parents not disciplining their children soley for the ills of society. I just think that may very likely be one of the factors that contribute to it. Discipline starts in the home. If children are taught at an early age that there are consequences for their actions and that they will be punished for doing wrong, then they are more likely to avoid wrongdoing as adults as well. Some kids grow up thinking they can get away with anything they want to, because their parents let them. Then, they end up in jail because the fact that doing bad causes consequences doesn't quite connect in their heads yet.

Still, though, disciplining one's children need not necessarily include spanking.

Also, you made some very good points about violence begetting violence. Children do imitate their parents, and spanking can teach them that it is all right to hit other people.

In my family, like yours, hitting your parent back is a HUGE no-no. I did not quite respect that, however. When my dad tried to spank me, I very often fought back. What this led to was sometimes kick-down, drag-out fights between us. You can guess that I would probably lose, because yeah... he was obviously stronger than I. But what really happened was that I would never stop fighting, and he really did not want to hurt me... so I always won. I think I really hurt him pretty badly a couple of times, too. What it led to eventually was that he refused to spank me ever, but he would stand over my Mom and insist that she do it. I have never fought or hit my mother. I don't know why, but I have a mental block about raising my hand against the person that gave me life - no matter how many times she spanked me or hit. Even to this day, I could not properly analyze why hitting my mother and hitting my father seemed like two entirely different things to me. If she came at me to hit me now (which I am sure she would not), or if she tried to slap me now... yeah, I STILL would not raise a hand against her. Again, I have no idea why. Retaliation is the natural response to violence.

[lions mane]

But, as I was saying about ethnicity, I've noticed that LOTS of hispanic families are like this. And this is just one reason why Im ashamed of that one bit of Hispanic in me. (hehe, note how I always strain that it's "bit" of Hispanic)
I truly cannot imagine many Europeans having anything to do with corporal punishment, for that matter.

what makes you think that all hispanics beat their kids?
just because you may have had some horrible experiences does not give you the right to talk about all hispanics (dont forget your not the only cuban here). my whole family is hispanic and i rarely got hit or anything for punishment. but some of my cousins would get beat, so i understand where you say "hispanics/latins" but not al of them are like that. ;)

i just had to get that off my chest, i just thought it was very disrespectfull.

and i dont even know if any of that makes any sense (its late here).

[LifeMaiden]

what makes you think that all hispanics beat their kids?
just because you may have had some horrible experiences does not give you the right to talk about all hispanics (dont forget your not the only cuban here). my whole family is hispanic and i rarely got hit or anything for punishment. but some of my cousins would get beat, so i understand where you say "hispanics/latins" but not al of them are like that. ;)

i just had to get that off my chest, i just thought it was very disrespectfull.

and i dont even know if any of that makes any sense (its late here).



The word is not Hispanic!! LOL IT'S LATINO!!! :D


I think what Sofie meant was that not ALL Hispanics beat their kids, but many are very physical with punishment and affection culturally. Being Asian, I can testify that MOST Asian people ( NOT ALL) at least the ones of the 'orient' Asian ( Japanese, Chinese, Vietnam...NOT Phillipino, because they are more Latin-influenced) variety...are not demonstrative AT ALL with physical punishment OR affection. They are very reserved emotionally.

[lions mane]

The word is not Hispanic!! LOL IT'S LATINO!!! :D


I think what Sofie meant was that not ALL Hispanics beat their kids, but many are very physical with punishment and affection culturally. Being Asian, I can testify that MOST Asian people ( NOT ALL) at least the ones of the 'orient' Asian ( Japanese, Chinese, Vietnam...NOT Phillipino, because they are more Latin-influenced) variety...are not demonstrative AT ALL with physical punishment OR affection. They are very reserved emotionally.
this is what she put:
But, as I was saying about ethnicity, I've noticed that LOTS of hispanic families are like this. And this is just one reason why Im ashamed of that one bit of Hispanic in me. (hehe, note how I always strain that it's "bit" of Hispanic)
and i just really had to disagree with that, being that i am hispanic.

[Ephinie]

Okay, I typed my response to Teh Deviant before seeing what you had posted, IM! And here you brought up crime just like I did. Weird...

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

what makes you think that all hispanics beat their kids?
just because you may have had some horrible experiences does not give you the right to talk about all hispanics (dont forget your not the only cuban here). my whole family is hispanic and i rarely got hit or anything for punishment. but some of my cousins would get beat, so i understand where you say "hispanics/latins" but not al of them are like that. ;)

i just had to get that off my chest, i just thought it was very disrespectfull.

and i dont even know if any of that makes any sense (its late here).


Oh, no, no no. I am NOT Cuban. we are ALL Spanish, but my grandparents moved to Cuba from Spain and then here. So I'm Spanish/American, thakn you very much. *grunts* NOT CUBAN:eek:


Anyways, I think it all depends on the crime...like how bad it was..then according to that, if it would actually change your ways to receive bad treatement/pain.

[Ephinie]

Anyways, I think it all depends on the crime...like how bad it was..then according to that, if it would actually change your ways to receive bad treatement/pain.Well... I watch Law and Order a lot, which, I know... is just a TV show. It does not necessarily reflect reality. That being said, one question that comes up in that show again and again when dealing with perpetrators in court is... Did they know that what they were doing was wrong? If their lawyer can prove that the defendant did not realize they were doing wrong, they can get off. They're always having their phsycologist interview people to determine if they can tell the difference between right and wrong. Well, okay...... why would someone not know the difference between right and wrong? If they're taught the difference when they are young, then they should know.

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

Well... I watch Law and Order a lot, which, I know... is just a TV show. It does not necessarily reflect reality. That being said, one question that comes up in that show again and again when dealing with perpetrators in court is... Did they know that what they were doing was wrong? If their lawyer can prove that the defendant did not realize they were doing wrong, they can get off. They're always having their phsycologist interview people to determine if they can tell the difference between right and wrong. Well, okay...... why would someone not know the difference between right and wrong? If they're taught the difference when they are young, then they should know.

Heh, I watch SVU :p

But, anyways, that's why at the beginning of my first reply, I said how it had to do with upbrigning..the whole corporal punishment thing...but I think that how you were brought up and what you were taught during those first (vital) years of your life, refelcts almost everything you do, all the decisions you make. So what parents, teachers, peers have to do is just set a good example. Which is so hard when you have your own problems to deal with. :rolleyes:
Honestly..I have no hope at all..for any of the things discussed here, that should change.

[LifeMaiden]

When speaking about different 'cultures' and corporal punishment I think it's very interesting to note how they interact with their children overall, and how culture can strongly influence one's parents in the decision to spank their kids or not. My experience with Latino and African-American families and friends have been that they are much more expressive with their emotions, in both affection and anger, than say, my own culture is. Conversely, I am also part Hawaiian, and Hawaiian people are not 'oriental Asian' but a whole seperate race and culture.

Hawaiians are very much like African Americans and Latinos in that they are very demonstrative with their emotions much more so than oriental Asians. I know growing up, my parents never really hugged me much or kissed me, but I understood implicitly, without them having to tell me all the time, that they loved me and cared for me through their actions. People have also told me that despite my outgoing nature, I am actually very reserved with my demonstrations of affection. But not anger LOL :D

My grandparents from Japan on my mother's side were the same way. They never spanked their kids, never yelled or raised their voices, but let me tell you...one LOOK or one soft word of admonishment was enough to freeze their many kids in their tracks instantly. So you see, while they were able to discipline their kids with a stern look or a few very dangerous words LOL, that is a very different style of parenting than say, some Latinos and blacks I know, who would demonstrate their emotions all the time by yelling, screaming ( in happiness or anger and affection), and using corporal punishment. My black girlfriend told me her grandparents used to beat their kids ( her dad) with inner tubes and switches, and then fix their kids up " Now baby, if you hadn't made me mad I wouldn't have to beat you!!" but she meant it in a humorous way when she said that.


I also enjoy watching the way different cultures interact with their kids in public.

[Ephinie]

Heh, I watch SVU :pI watch SVU as well; it's my favorite. Also, it should be noted that broken. has a HUGE crush on Detective Stabler. She drools over him every time we watch. And ya know... he's like in his forties or something :eek: .

[LifeMaiden]

I love Law and Order but watch more Criminal Intent than SVU. However I am a huge fan of Mariska Hartigay, who by the way is the daughter of the blonde sex symbol Jayne Mansfield.

Still SVU is a riveting show...there have been some very weird cases on there that just boggle the mind. I am very sensitive about abused children and women, so you can see where that show might have special meaning.

[Ephinie]

Criminal Intent is awesome, too. The pair they have on that show are the best out of all the Law and Order partners at working together.

[Sunrise]

I'd like to put in a positive stance on corporal punishment.

And this isn't because I don't get where some of you have been coming from. I also was physically abused by an out-of-control and violent parent until I was seventeen years old, and I totally understand the humiliation and anger that have the exact opposite effect of what the parent intends. My "punishments" were almost always unjust, and they made me so mad that I wanted to go out and do whatever it was I was being punished for, all over again, just to "get back" at the parent.

I do, however, believe in corporal punishment if it is carried out properly, and that is they key difference. I know many families who implement what they call "biblical discipline" and it works. Their kids are not angry or violent. They are happy kids who respect and love their parents and have levels of self-control and discipline that I don't see in kids from families that don't use these methods. The primary difference seems to be the philosophy behind the spanking. The parents see it as "discipline", not "punishment" - it's subtle, but it's a distinction that has to be made. "Discipline" is a process intended to change a behavior or attitude. "Punishment" is retribution, end of story. Hell, for example, is punishment. There's no changing after that point. But God disciplines us all the time through various trials, intended to bring about our repentance and growth.

Spanking is abuse when the parent is out-of-control. A parent who gets angry and hits his child for minor infractions like spilling milk or failing in some task is not disciplining his child; he's acting out his OWN lack of control and emotional instability. This was the kind of thing I, and it sounds like several of you, got as a kid. And I agree, it is ineffective and abusive. It teaches the child nothing except that violence is an acceptable way to express your anger. The way some of you have described certain cultural stereotypes known for their passionate displays of emotion only backs this up. Discipline should never be carried out in the height of anger.

Spanking is disciplinary when it is for specific grave infractions: deliberate disobedience, disrespect, and lying being the three biggies in most of the families I know. Consistency is paramount - you can't laugh at a behavior one day and spank for it the next. In the scenario, the parent gives the child and himself time to cool down from the emotions of the moment, carries out the discipline calmly and without anger, soothes and calms the child to restore affection, and then requires the child to correct the behavior/attitude. This last emphasis is key, because many kids, given the choice between obedience and spanking, will take the spanking. So after the spanking is given, if the parent doesn't return the child to whatever situation the infraction occurred and allow him/her to correct the behavior by responding appropriately, the spanking quite possibly will have no effect.

Example: Family in living room in the evening. Parent tells child to pick up toys and get ready for bed. Child ignores direct order or actively rebels by saying "no", pouting, or throwing tantrum. Parent takes child to bathroom (or wherever), has a talk, delivers the spanking, and calms and soothes child. This is where a lot of people drop the ball; they just spank the kid and send him to bed. Well, essentially, he's just gotten away with a major infraction because he still hasn't picked up his toys, nor has he gone to bed of his own volition - he's just born up manfully under physical pain; the underlying rebellion is still there. The careful disciplinarian will take the child back to the living room and repeat the command to pick up toys and get ready for bed, which the child is to obey without protesting or sulking. It's not an issue of the parent "winning" and the child "losing" - it's an issue of the child knowing the boundaries, learning to choose to control his self-centered instincts, and responding appropriately of his own volition.

I know many, maybe all of you will disagree with me because of your own histories and the emotions wrapped up in them. Believe me, it took me a long time to come to this point, because every time I thought of spanking, the image of that raging parent from my childhood and all the fear, humiliation, and anger connected with it came rushing back. But the more research I have done, the more families I have seen, and the more careful, objective thought I've given to it, the more I've been won over by the discipline philosophy. I think a LOT of our social problems would be lessened if more parents would carry out this method consistently. (Of course the problem is that most parents don't know HOW to do this, and resort to losing control, screaming, and reacting in violence, because that's how THEY were brought up.)

I think the self-control is the major component. IM, I think you mentioned how in the Japanese culture, a quiet firm word or look was all that was required - again, that is an in-control parent, teaching their child by example that an emotional outburst is not appropriate. In that case the child is responding to parental and cultural pressure, which it seems works well for them. That's really cool. I wish we had that kind of social pressure here in the US!

[LifeMaiden]

Sunrise,


* Appropriately, the sun is already rising as write this, and I was up all night not because of insomnia, but because I got excited about reading CS Lewis, thinking of my next contest to host here on the forum, posting here, instant messaging some new friends online from the forum, and then realizing...OH NO!!!! I have only a handful of hours to get some shuteye before I go to work at the gym ...this is why my usual first client of the day is scheduled around 11am or 12pm noon LOL.*



That was one of the most eloquent, thought-provoking and insightful posts I have seen on ANY controversial topic here, Sunrise, and I wish that you would lend your intelligent posts in the more heated sections of the forum here more often ( see abortion, birth control, etc).


You see, my father's problem was exactly what you described...a LACK of control and emotional instability. HIS own family, his father and various stepmothers, gave him a very skewed, fractured upbringing which I did not know about til only a few years ago! He did not know how to be a father in many ways because his own father had been too busy to raise him and his real sister, and I think that inconsistency made a great impression on my father in how he raised ME.



The inconsistencies of my upbringing were that my father did NOT discipline me when I threw tantrums or tossed food at the dinner table, things that deserved discipline * a spanking and explanation* and a subsequent form of punishment, such as no dessert or no cookies after the incident. Instead, what he would do is slap me for something that I COULD NOT HELP, such as an accident! And as you said, by demonstrating that lack of control in such a situation, he was showing me that anger was an okay way to express yourself. It was why when I went to school, I did the same thing to other students who made me angry.


Most of the time, I did the exact thing my father did to me...and that was to SLAP someone or hit them in the head. When I accidently knocked over the milk once, my father slapped me across the face. When I accidently hit him in the head with the ball I was throwing, he walked over to me and hit me really hard in the head with the back of his hand.


Then, one time, I accidently ( are you getting the picture here?) dropped the rake in the front yard while I was helping him rake leaves, and he took his leather glove and swatted me across the face. This made me incredibly ANGRY as a child. In kind, I retaliated at school when called racist names and retaliated often very violently, such as breaking the kid's glasses, punching them, slapping them, throwing them on the ground and kicking them, or other things. I was suspended numerous times for that kind of thing, and despite my good grades and intelligence, my teachers worried that my behavior was over the top. I was hyperactive, but I sense now that some of that was based on my anger towards my father, and my inability to control my anger.


And you know what? Now I know my father never punished me for hitting OTHER kids because he believed that hitting was an okay way to show anger and 'punish' the other person, because that was what he showed me when I was young. His form of discipline was punishment to me, and the inconsistencies ( hitting me when I made a mistake) versus punishing me when I threw things or tantrums was just making my head spin.



Your advice about talking and soothing the child after spanking was SOUND ADVICE, Sunrise. My mother spanked me once or twice only, and she always came into my room afterwards to explain why she did it, and then we would read a story together and she would kiss me goodnight. But my father? Forget it. When he slapped me or whatever it never took place at night, only during the day. And once in a while, other people would witness this. One time, he was teaching me how to play pool, and there were some young men there. Men I didn't know of course. I accidently knocked over that triangular thing that you use to organize the cue balls, and my father slapped me so hard that tears ran down my face.

The other men just stood there and stared at my father, astonished that he would do something like that. Instead of saying, " Michelle, pick up the cue ball holder please...you dropped it..." he just slapped me! Tears ran down my face and I ran out of the room because I was so embarassed for myself. I didn't want anyone to see me cry. But my father was the one who should have been ashamed of himself then.


So your post is absolutely DEAD ON, Sunrise. The strange thing is...my mother is the one that could kill me with a look or a sentence of admonishment. The few times she ever spanked me, she always resolved it. She and my father argued about how to raise me and how to discipline me, and obviously my father, at least until I was in Middle School, usually won out with his way. But my anger somehow found another outlet, although I still got into fights at school and had a hard time controlling my temper, I found it turned inwards...against myself, and that was when, in 7th and 8th grade, I developed anorexia and then bulimia, going from 100 pounds down to about 82.


So this is why when we speak of corporal punishment, if it's done correctly, and gently, then I feel it's okay. But I don't think what my father did was okay at ALL. It created in me a rage that took years of therapy to erase.

[EveningStar]

A bit of counseling advice from a counselor that considers himself conservative:

Children are not equipped to live outside a structured and safe environment. When kids are allowed to run wild and have no absolutes, no structure, no rules and everything is relative and situational, it causes them stress.

Yes, I said stress. People have always thought about the stress of overly repressive rules. People do not realize that there is stress in the lives of kids that don't have certain guideposts they can rely upon to simplify decisionmaking and value judgments.

It is a known fact that children derive a certain degree of their feeling of comfort, safety and belongingness when they feel their parents are "handling" things. Otherwise the kids feel they must "handle" things themselves. That feeling may be more complex and harder to define as kids become adolescents, but by that time anyhow they are more likely to be punished by lack of privileges rather than corporal punishment anyhow.

John

[Sunrise]

IM - I hear you, girl. I know EXACTLY what it is like. I used to get hit with a belt for - you ready for this? - forgetting to WEAR a belt. My stepdad made up this rule that you were always supposed to wear a belt with jeans...this came out of the blue about the time I was fifteen - up until then it wasn't an issue, so I wasn't in the habit of it. If he caught me when I didn't have one on, he would demand why, and if I said I forgot, he'd either hit me for forgetting, or accuse me of deliberately disobeying his arbitrary rule, call me a liar, and hit me again. What you have here is not a parent; it is someone so out-of-control in their own being that they have an obsessive need to control everyone else down to the smallest minutae of life. And of course I could give a bazillion other examples of this! It is quite possible that I only was saved from needing therapy by the fact that this man was not my real father, so I felt no guilt or compunction about admitting my anger toward him and dealing with it. I can imagine how devastating it must be when your flesh-and-blood parent, someone you are supposed to love and who should love and protect you, treats you this way.

Yes, that restorative moment after the discipline session is incredibly important, I'm told. The philosophy is that the discipline is more than a behavior-changer - it is a restorative process between parent and child. It's rather a strange thing to bend one's mind around, because it seems to run counter to common sense - i.e. "why would I feel restored relationally to someone who has just caused me pain?" - but it is the key to the whole process. The idea is that you have to do more than change behavior - you have to change the heart. Any kid can fake good behavior, after all, but what happens when nobody is around to enforce it? If the heart has not changed - if the child has not reached a place of submission and trust toward the parent - then you have a worse problem to deal with than the original disobedience. The families I know, after they spank a child, will then hold and comfort the child and pray together with him/her, asking God for help in developing self-control, kindness, honesty, unselfishness, etc (whatever is appropriate in the scenario). That way, when the discipline session is over, there have been expressions of love and affection on both sides, and the child is assured that he has been forgiven and is starting over with a clean slate. It's a powerful working out of the way God himself deals with us - and it's the way the parents teach their children to respond to God's discipline. As you experienced with your mother, once a child knows those boundaries without suffering a loss of love or respect for the parent, the need for such strenuous discipline diminishes - a look, or a word, may be all that is necessary after a while.

This is not to say it's a perfect system - parents are imperfect people! Every one has told me that there have been times they have blown it - reacted in anger, or disciplined unfairly. On such occasions they will then humble themselves and apologize to the offended child - and these occasions, though blessedly rare, they say cause even greater trust and respect from their child. After all, if the kids see a parent admit guilt and repent, it gives them a model for themselves. They know there is no hypocrisy, and that their parents hold themselves to the same standard they hold their kids.

Thanks for the compliments regarding the post. I DO frequent most of the hot-topic threads, but I try only to post when I feel like I've got something constructive to say that HASN'T been said already. Most of the theological stuff is much better handled by greater minds.

[Ephinie]

Sunrise, thanks for your input on this subject. I think you have struck a key note here, with the different between abuse and appropriate punishment being in the factor of self-control. Also, the differences you stated between discipline and punishment are very important to note.

Everything you have stated is sound, though now I am having trouble reconciling your points to my own personal situation growing up. In the case of my dad, before he stopped spanking me, the punishments sometimes were carried out in the heat of the moment. That is why fights would ensue - even if he was not still upset, I almost always was. But it was different with my mother. As I grew into adolescence, I saw more and more of the angry, heat-of-the-moment punishments. However, in my early years up to about age fourteen or fifteen, she almost ALWAYS did that delayed-punishment thing. She also usually did the whole, "soothing," thing you mentioned as well. It still never had a positive effect on me, especially when I was innocent of the crime for which I had been punished. I noticed that you mentioned disobedience, disrespect, and lying to be the three key things for which corporal punishment may be appropriate. Lying was considered the worst crime in my family, and it automatically got you five spankings just for lying. No matter what the crime was, if you lied, you got five spankings. Also, you got five spankings for EACH time you lied, even if it was the same lie. Thus, I was always ending up in these situations where I would be getting 20 + spankings for doing something like stealing ice cream out of the freezer. The fact that she waited until later to dole them out did not abate my bitterness or anger at being treated unjustly.

Also, there was the problem that almost all of the time, I was NOT lying - she just would not believe me. I think it is important that if you discipline a child for lying, you have some sort of proof that they actually ARE lying. By proof I mean something that you can SHOW to them and say, "Look at this; it shows that you are clearly lying." Taking testimony from siblings is not valid proof, even if two or more corroborate the testimony... why? Well... siblings lie to get each other in trouble. My brothers gained up on me all the time and said that they saw me do something, mainly because if they could get someone else blamed, they wouldn't have to be punished themselves.

The whole soothing process afterwards was pointless for me, because no matter how many times I was spanked, I would still insist upon my innocence. This often led to even more spankings. I'll admit, there were a few times when I really WAS lying, but I stuck to it to the bitter end. I guess that was mainly because most of the time, I really did tell the truth; but I never ended up better off for it. Telling the truth or lying had the same end result for me.

But anyways, what happened were these incidents where my mother was most certainly NOT out of control at the time that she spanked me for my "crimes." Sometimes it was not even the same day as when the accused action took place. She was very calm most of the time, and though both of my parents yelled at me a lot, she never yelled at me at the time that the punishment was happening. But I still ended up getting more than twenty hard slaps on rump, usually with a leather belt, for something as trivial as taking a piece of food out of the refidgerator without permission. That was actually almost always what was being punished - "stealing food." No matter how many times she calmly explained to me that all of these extra spankings were not for stealing the food but for lying about it, that never registered in my mind. To me, I was just being spanked for doing something that I didn't do. And when she tried to sooth me afterwards, that made me more angry. There is NOTHING I hated worse than having her try to tell me that she loved me after such an incident, because I thought, "If you love me, then why won't you believe me?"

So yes, spanking can be excessive almost to the point of abuse even if the parents are exercising self-control and are not emotionally distraught.

[broken.]

I watch SVU as well; it's my favorite. Also, it should be noted that broken. has a HUGE crush on Detective Stabler. She drools over him every time we watch. And ya know... he's like in his forties or something :eek: .

Ya know...you're lucky you're my best friend... :p

[♣Teh Deviant♣]

But anyways, what happened were these incidents where my mother was most certainly NOT out of control at the time that she spanked me for my "crimes." Sometimes it was not even the same day as when the accused action took place. She was very calm most of the time, and though both of my parents yelled at me a lot, she never yelled at me at the time that the punishment was happening. But I still ended up getting more than twenty hard slaps on rump, usually with a leather belt, for something as trivial as taking a piece of food out of the refidgerator without permission. That was actually almost always what was being punished - "stealing food." No matter how many times she calmly explained to me that all of these extra spankings were not for stealing the food but for lying about it, that never registered in my mind. To me, I was just being spanked for doing something that I didn't do. And when she tried to sooth me afterwards, that made me more angry. There is NOTHING I hated worse than having her try to tell me that she loved me after such an incident, because I thought, "If you love me, then why won't you believe me?"

So yes, spanking can be excessive almost to the point of abuse even if the parents are exercising self-control and are not emotionally distraught.


..how can you steal food from your own house? Forgive me, but that seems VERY unfair.


I have almost the exact situation that IM had.I used to be violent, but now I take it out on myself by not eating. It's just a security blanket.

My father is abusive in a silent way, by never being here (I've never met him)..not to seem dramatic, but, yeah.

In my opinion, the best solution to this problem so far has been the way that IM's mother disciplined her, and Sunrise's..except I've been there, in a scenario where i was preached over..and all it did was infuriate me more that I was so bad that I had to be holified or something.

[LifeMaiden]

..how can you steal food from your own house? Forgive me, but that seems VERY unfair.


I have almost the exact situation that IM had.I used to be violent, but now I take it out on myself by not eating. It's just a security blanket.

My father is abusive in a silent way, by never being here (I've never met him)..not to seem dramatic, but, yeah.

In my opinion, the best solution to this problem so far has been the way that IM's mother disciplined her, and Sunrise's..except I've been there, in a scenario where i was preached over..and all it did was infuriate me more that I was so bad that I had to be holified or something.




This is one of my problems I have with Asian culture. A man or woman does not need to be violent or outspoken to be controlling. In between the occasional bouts of anger my father had, he was sort of like the Rock of Gibraltar...he would sit there silently, but he was able to control a whole room like that. He shows no emotion normally so you can imagine my resentment of him when the few times he DID show emotion, it was to slap me or spank me, and then, for reasons I did not understand. I just used go crazy as a kid, throwing things, screaming and getting in trouble at school. But like Teh Deviant, I found a way to turn everything inward and 'control' myself through food, the anorexia and bulimia. I was too skinny and had no energy to get violent or get emotional.

You see, even though my father is more "American" culturally than my mother, whose parents were from Japan, he was also much more 'Japanese' than my mother. He truly believes that women should serve men...and a lot of my aunts were like this...they waited on their men hands and feet. There WAS no chivalry, which is a Western concept. Asian men do not open doors for women, and they don't lift a finger to do anything around the house.

When a woman gets OLDER, she can exude more power in an Asian household. My father just can't even microwave a dinner without blowing it up or making a mess, showing me how helpless he became through the years while my mother did everything. I understand now because my father NEVER used to communicate...if you think it's hard for MEN to communicate, try an older Asian guy. They just don't talk about stuff, like it's shameful. So when I finally did find out about his childhood and his own upbringing, I was at least able to say, " Dad, you didn't know how to be a perfect parent, but you loved me, your way."

[Sunrise]

Also, there was the problem that almost all of the time, I was NOT lying - she just would not believe me. I think it is important that if you discipline a child for lying, you have some sort of proof that they actually ARE lying. By proof I mean something that you can SHOW to them and say, "Look at this; it shows that you are clearly lying." Taking testimony from siblings is not valid proof, even if two or more corroborate the testimony... why? Well... siblings lie to get each other in trouble. My brothers gained up on me all the time and said that they saw me do something, mainly because if they could get someone else blamed, they wouldn't have to be punished themselves.


Yeah, that's a big issue. I was accused of lying all the time by my abusive parent, and it was absolutely infuriating. So it definitely is important, if you're going to discipline for lying, you'd better know for sure that it really is going on. I think, particularly with small children, it's pretty easy to tell, because they aren't very good at it yet - you know, you see the kid with chocolate all over his face and he's saying, "I didn't steal any cookies". I guess the hope is that by the time they get old enough to get good at it, their characters will have been shaped well enough to avoid it.

It sounds like your struggle became a lack of trust between you and your parents - perfectly understandable since they would not believe you and treated you unfairly in so many instances. In any of those cases, were you ever able to prove your innocence, and if so, did you get an apology from your parents?

I would NEVER take the word of other siblings about something one of them has done wrong. "No tattling" is a rule in most of the families I know. It means a few infractions might slip by, but as long as the parents are consistent in the things they KNOW about, I'm told everything works fine.

I also agree with an earlier point you made that different kids respond differently to discipline, and the parent needs to fit the disciplinary action to the child and the crime.

TehDeviant - I understand your anger about your abuse, and your unwillingness to hear about "preachified" spanking - but let me be clear: the type of discipline I'm talking about is NOT a parent (or some other caregiver) beating you in a blind rage and saying God told them to do it. For one thing, only a parent has the authority to physically discipline a child, so if those babysitters of yours were treating you badly and hitting you, they were very much in the wrong. And for another, even a parent should not physically discipline if they cannot do it fairly, calmly, and lovingly - and nothing you've described about your mother leads me to believe that she is emotionally capable of this. You have been put in a terrible position and it is not at all surprising that you've become self-destructive. Hang in there, sweetie; you are loved. Your life WILL change...don't destroy your chances of future happiness by making impulsive bad decisions now.

[Neevil]

I can tell you from first hand experience that spanking, the way Sunrise described, works very well. This is almost exactly how my parents disciplined my sisters and I. Let me tell you, when I was a toddler I was a brat. But through this method of discipline, my parents taught me right from wrong, but also instilled in me love and respect for them. As a teenager now, I hardly ever get into trouble. This isn't because I live in fear of being punished... it's because I love my parents, respect their authority, and I want to obey them. I am, of course, not perfect, and do make occasionally do something I'm not supposed to... and then I feel soooo guilty, because I know its wrong.

Anyway... I think spanking should be done right, or not at all. The parent has to discipline lovingly. My mom never spanked me when she was angry. If I did something really bad, and she did get mad, she would just send me to my room or something for a little, until she calmed down, and then disciplin me. And I guess after a while, spanking isn't really that effective. Once the child reaches a certain age, I mean. And then the parents can think of a more age-appropriate punishment...

I'm glad you wrote such a nice post, Sunrise, because you saved me the trouble of writing all that, and you did a much better job than I would have... :)

[Sunrise]

I decided to re-read the original purpose of this thread, since it sort of became all about corporal punishment, and that was not the intent, I think. Ephie brought up a lot of other issues that I think are interesting, and as a soon-to-be parent myself, I find myself mulling over such things often.

Re: homeschooling. You mentioned that some parents got uptight about submitting to testing by the state to make sure their children were on the same level as the public school kids their age. Yet, honestly, there has to be some form of accountability. From what I've heard, homeschooled kids are usually AHEAD of the pack, so I don't know why their parents should feel threatened by such a measure. I suppose, however, that many of them see it as govt. once again sticking its nose into their business, and since most homeschooling families are on the conservative side, that wouldn't go over well, particularly if they feel discriminated against because they're teaching stuff like creation-science or God-centered history.

Anger over forced registration of their kids is a little more understandable. My cynical side says that this is an underhanded way for the school to get more funding - since they get X amount of dollars per student - and as a homeschooling parent I'd be ticked if the local school was getting money for my child's education when I was the one doing the educating. Particularly if I'd made that choice because I thought the public system was an utter failure and a drain on state resources.

There was a big issue here where public schools were telling homeschooling parents that they could not enroll their kids in the school's extra-curricular activities (band, drama, sports, etc.), and parents were pointing out that their kids were registered at the schools and being paid for with their tax dollars. I'd be on the parents' side on that one.

[inkspot]

Maybe I am prejudiced because my folks never spanked, but I really cringe when I see a parent hit a child, at all. Children are so much smaller, it just seems wrong. Of course, when I got married, my husband's girls were already 8 and 10, and they were nice little girls (who were never spanked, as it happens) so there were no real "discipline issues" with them ... it just seems to me there must be a much better way of discipline than hitting the kid. That just seems so unfair. But, I've never had a difficult child to deal with; I am sure there must be times you feel like hitting them!

I don't think home-school parents have any reason to grouse that their children must be tested by the state to make sure they are keeping up in basic subjects. One of my girl friends in college went to a private church school just run by parents, not teachers or educators, for elementary and high school, and she had about the worst preparation for college I had ever seen! I wish for her sake and her classmates that the state had forced them to be tested for basic competency in language, math, science and social studies. It ws a crime how poorly educated she was.

I do not think it is fair for the home-school kids to be registered at the public school, so the school receives money for their education. That is a kind of fraud in a way.

[EveningStar]

PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Let me give you an unusual Christian perspective:

Every person has certain rights and bears certain responsibilities. Parental authority arises from the need of underage people to have an advocate to protect their rights and a regent to enforce their responsibilities. Parental authority is not ownership of your children, it's a service you perform on their behalf, holding their rights and responsibilities in trust until they come of age, and always with their best interests in mind. Instilling social skills and self discipline are included in the package and failing to give your child these tools is in the truest sense letting them down, so yes, saying "Do what I say or there will be consequences" is perfectly fine and good when it's a reasonable request like homework, coming home by curfew or thanking people for Christmas presents. Because in the real world every act has consequences. If anything, that spanking or week's grounding is so much preferable to the unpleasant realities of disorderly living...giving up college for teen pregnancy, going to prison for drug abuse, dying of an overdose in some dark alley, or losing your house over income tax evasion. When children feel immune to reproof, that's the sort of adult problems they have.

There is a different case of authority that has nothing to do with the parent/child relationship. And that's people harming people. It bothers me that people shoehorn verbal or physical assaults into the generic offense of "showing disrespect to one's parents" or even "showing disrespect to one's elders". If the act is always wrong, no matter who is doing it to whom, it should be handled differently than cases of parental authority.

In defending his or herself, the parent has considerations beyond merely acting in the child's best interest. Though a parent should be selfless and not base love upon a child's merits, they should defend their own human rights and dignity from unwarranted attack. It is time that children learned their parents are people too, and that people have the right to defend themselves inside our outside of family circles.

ES

[inkspot]

It bothers me that people shoehorn verbal or physical assaults into the generic offense of "showing disrespect to one's parents" or even "showing disrespect to one's elders". If the act is always wrong, no matter who is doing it to whom, it should be handled differently than cases of parental authority.
I think I understand you, but by the same token, it's bogus to excuse verbal or physical assaults as "disciplining the child" or "teaching the next generation values," isn't it? If the act is wrong, no matter who is doing it to whom, it should be handled differently in cases of disciplining the child?

or did I miss what you were saying?

[EveningStar]

You missed it, Inky. The topic is on Parental Authority and there is currently a struggle between those who want to keep it on that topic and those who want to digress on the effectiveness of corporal punishment.

My goal is to express my opinion on parental authority, not corporal punishment.

There is a difference between modest corporal punishment and "beating" a child. That difference is crossed when the parent is seeking revenge on the child or expressing outrage. Much as one guy invites another guy into the alley to beat the snot out of him for calling him a git.

ES

[inkspot]

OK, now I understand. You are right, I did miss it.
Thanks for explaining again for the mod ...
:)

[Miss Freckles]

I have not read most of the statements here, but that's my thoughts about parental authority.

As long as you're a child that does not know right from wrong, you should have a good godfather or godmother who knows what's going on in the family and who has an eye on both parents and child of course.

When the child is old enough then, it should take God's advice and show respect for his parents. Respect doesn't mean accepting blindly everything they say but to compare it with what God would do or not do and then obey or disobey. If you get what I'm saying...

On physical punishment, I can only say that my parents beat me when I had done wrong and it didn't do me bad. But it wasn't through punishment that I gained respect for my parents, it was when for example my father came up to me and apologized and admitted that he had done something he should not have done.

On the school thing I can't say much, we don't have the problem here I think.

Oh I hate when people write so much... if you read till here: thank you very much! ^^
Now it sounds pretty easy what I write - er... it is NOT...

[Neevil]

As far as homeschooling goes, I think parents definately have the right to educate their children. But I think there should be some sort of testing requirements. The majority of homeschoolers do a fabulous job teaching their kids, but there are a few who don't. Like Inkspot said, these children are at such a disadvantage when their parents choose to do a bad teaching job. So, there has to be some laws to ensure the proper education of these children. But not so many that the rest of homeschoolers are going crazy trying to keep test results, keep tract of hours, etc., when they could to a perfectly fine job teaching their kids with out all the laws.

[Jood]

Elashia,

A typical thoughtful and well expressed post! Thanks.

ES
Thanks John, but not all agree with me. broken. it really depends on the parents, if your parents are mean, cruel, and abusive, you are going to feel that, no matter how much they say "we love you." I have been raised in a Christian house, so on top of the chat, Dad and/or Mom would pray for me to stop disobaying, and learn to heed their instruction.

[Ephinie]

I think the specific problem that most home school families have with being forced to do yearly testing or to meet other requirements in order to prove that the children are progressing is that they are afraid the government is really interested in proving home schooling to be invalid rather than in making sure children are getting the basic education that they need. They have the perception that the government really just wants to stick their noses into private family business and control private family matters. Ultimately, they are afraid that the government will force them to stop home schooling. A lot of the home schoolers I grew up around were very much conspiracy theorists when it came to the public school system, and they thought that the government wanted to ultimately force everyone into public school so that they could indoctrinate children with evil New Age philosophies. It was all a ploy to remove children from Christian ideology and turn them against their parents. All a conspiracy. So they weren't concerned with whether or not their children would pass yearly tests, they just thought it was one more step to taking children away from Christian parents and teaching them to be anti-Christian.

[inkspot]

Ah, well, if a person feels that way, then no amount of trying to convince them the testing is for the protection of the children will change it. And I do believe the educational establishment is against home schooling -- because if parents can do better themselves, then what is the point of the school system except to baby sit the kids? But someone does need to make sure the kids are getting the basics; as I say, it was a crime the way my friend was educated (or not educated) in the private school run by parents in her church. They had no business running a school!

[Ephinie]

Ah, well, if a person feels that way, then no amount of trying to convince them the testing is for the protection of the children will change it. And I do believe the educational establishment is against home schooling -- because if parents can do better themselves, then what is the point of the school system except to baby sit the kids? But someone does need to make sure the kids are getting the basics; as I say, it was a crime the way my friend was educated (or not educated) in the private school run by parents in her church. They had no business running a school!
I think if it's a private school run soley by parents in the church - rather than by educators - and if it is not accountable to any state or private educational organization and has no accrediation, then it's just home schooling on steroids.

I have mixed feelings about home schooling. I think that a lot of parents are able to educate their children very well, but I have also seen home schooling gone wrong way too many times. I was home schooled myself for all but three years (6th grade, 8th grade, and 9th grade). It was a complete failure in my case, though I did manage to get an education and be successful in college - mostly through my own efforts rather than my parents'. My three brothers were also home schooled. My older brother went to a private school for the last three years of high school, and he managed to graduate that way. However, he struggled with grades and comprehension the whole time. He was way behind the other students in his class. He graduated with something like a 2.1 gpa, and his combined SAT score was 910. One of my younger brothers has still not finished school, and he is nineteen years old. He has something like a seventh grade education as of right now. My other younger brother, who is the youngest, was put in a private school a couple of years ago. He also struggled. Last year, my mom decided to home school him again because they moved from Virginia to Florida. Well, what actually happened was that he did no school at all. Thus, he is going to be starting private school again this fall a year behind. At least he still has three years of high school left that will hopefully fix his education problem before he graduates. As far as I know, my mom plans to keep him in the private school for the rest of his education.

That's just my family. Growing up in a home shcool family, we spent a good deal of time around other home school families. There were a few select families who did a very good job, and their children were actually ahead of public and private school students. The majority of those I was exposed to, however, were behind public and private school students. The funny part was that the students who were really ignorant had this huge attitude problem - they really thought they were better than public school kids. Smarter, more advanced, the whole deal. The ones I knew who really were ahead of the game did not seem to have this attitude.

So in the context of this thread, the question should be... should parents have the right to home school their children no matter how well or poorly the children are doing? Is it an affront to parental authority to take a child who consistently tests below the required placement level and compel the parent to put them in public or private school?

[Neevil]

Almost all of the homeschoolers I know (and I know a lot...) are doing pretty well with it. But I know, homeschooling isn't for everyone. I have a friend who has been homeschooled for the past 3 years, but struggled with it. She is very smart, but homeschooling just didn't work out, so she's going a private school this year. Where I live, homeschooling is very popular, and there is lots of support for it. And I think it is becoming more and more prevalent (in the US anyways).

So in the context of this thread, the question should be... should parents have the right to home school their children no matter how well or poorly the children are doing? Is it an affront to parental authority to take a child who consistently tests below the required placement level and compel the parent to put them in public or private school?

I think it depends how badly the children are doing. Some of my relatives homeschool, and sadly, do a very poor job. Because of certain circumstances, this past year they put their kids in public school. Unfotunately, they were all several grades behind. In cases like this, I think it would be alright for the goverment to say they need to be in public school.

But if the kids are only a little behind, or just barely passing, I think it's ok for them to remain homeschooled. After all, I know many kids who attend public or private schools and are behind, as well. Putting the kids in regular school doesn't automatically garantee that they will do any better than when they were homeschooled.

It also depends on the child. My friend, like I said before, is very smart, but homeschooling just wasn't for her. I know other people who wouldn't do well in public school, just because of their personality and stuff. So if a child isn't doing terrific homeschooling, but won't adapt well to public school, then maybe it would be more benificial for him/her to remain homeschooled.

[Natasia_Vae]

I was homeschooled for 6th and 7th grade but I was never asked to take tests and neither was my sister. Our homeschooling experience wasn't probably the best. For the first month we did a lot of work on the computer on some programs and stuff but after a while we just stopped. For two years we weren't schooled at all. I love to read though and I read all the time. When my family moved we decided to go to the public school. We had to take a lot of tests then to see if we could go to the grades we belonged in or if we'd have to be held back because of our homeschooling. When the results came we actually did far better than was expected. Now when my mom will tell teachers and people about her horrible job homeschooling they don't believe her; they say that she must have taught us something.

I think my point is that schools themselves don't always teach you anything. If my sister and I could take away for two years and come back and do good then the school isn't working very well. Kids spend so much time in school I think it's terrible that most of the time they aren't even learning anything. So I don't think that homeschoolers should have to be supervised when they are probably doing a better job than the school.

[Jood]

I've been homeschooled all my life, never had to take a test. I'm a grade ahead of the public school system, and that says something. I can see where tests would be helpful, some people (that I don't know) live maybe 10-15 miles from me, I've heard stories of this whole, street full of families who say they homeschool, but they don't do a thing of schooling with their children. It's quite sad really, it puts a bad name on the actual homeschoolers.

[Ephinie]

When I went to a Christian private school for the three (or really two and a half years that I did), there were a lot of other students there who had previously been home schooled. I would say at least half of the students in grades six and up had been home schooled before being enrolled in private school. This isn't all that surprising given that it was a Christian school. The thing was, they tested every student coming into the school, whether they had previously gone to a public school, a different private school, or had been home schooled. Every student there who I spoke to who had previously been home schooled had been placed in the previous grade level. Only a handful of the previous public/private schoolers had lost a grade.

Also, my mom screened several different schools in the area before placing us. At least two of the other private schools she looked at told her up front that they almost always put entering home schoolers into the previous grade because they just can't keep up with the other students. This infuriated her, so she immediately stopped considering them as worthy schools. She felt that any school that would dare suggest a home schooler could not keep up with their students must have something wrong with it. In the end, she settled on the one we went to because they did not tell her that up front. They simply told her that they test all incoming students for placement. It was after I started going to school there that I found out that all the others who had been home schooled were also put back a grade.

Some people on this thread have mentioned that there are public schoolers who are also behind. That's true. There are students in any form of education who lag behind the others. Regardless of whether a child is home schooled or traditionally schooled, a parent's involvment in the education is important. What sort of measures would it be appropriate for governing authorities to take (in the context of parental authority) when dealing with students in public schools whose parents very obviously take no part in the educational process? Mandatory tutoring, perhaps? Imposing a fine on the parents if they do not agree to go to a certain number of parent/teacher conferences or have some sort of system where they sign off on their child's homework each night?

[inkspot]

I think if they test the home school children and they aren't keeping up, they ought to just require them to be put into public school. I know nothing will make them keep up if they are just bad students or dummies, but it doesn't seem right, if they have these special needs, to expect the parents to be able to meet them ...

[Twilightdryadhobbit]

I think if they test the home school children and they aren't keeping up, they ought to just require them to be put into public school. I know nothing will make them keep up if they are just bad students or dummies, but it doesn't seem right, if they have these special needs, to expect the parents to be able to meet them ...


I don't think I can agree with that totally. For one thing, what would be the standard of "keeping up?" For instance, when I was in grade school, and being homeschooled, I fell a year behind in math. But since we weren't in traditional school, I was able to just catch up the math, and move ahead with English, and all the other subjects that I was perfectly capable of doing. If I had been required to be put in public school right then, it would have ben a waste, since I've done all the rest of my education as a homeschooler and am now entering college.

I'm also not sure whether it's about expecting parents to meet the special needs of kids. No one's forcing the parents to homeschool thier kids, but many encourage them to put them in school. If a parent needs help, they should be able to get it from the school system, but I think homeschooling may help people with special needs more, because they have the undivided focus of a teacher, and should eventually learn to be more self sufficient in a homeschool setting than in public school.

Also, on the subject of parental authority as it relates to homeschooling, using the state's tests are not the only way to prove that you are effectively being educated, at least in my state. Homeschool students are also allowed to have a certified teacher look at thier schoolwork for the year, and sign papers saying that they have passed the year of school. I think this is a much more effective way of testing homeschool education, since it does not involve having to test on exactly the same curriculum as the public schooled children (Avoiding which is a reason why many homeschool), and still proves to the state that they are learning.

[echoscot]

When I went to a Christian private school for the three (or really two and a half years that I did), there were a lot of other students there who had previously been home schooled. I would say at least half of the students in grades six and up had been home schooled before being enrolled in private school. This isn't all that surprising given that it was a Christian school. The thing was, they tested every student coming into the school, whether they had previously gone to a public school, a different private school, or had been home schooled. Every student there who I spoke to who had previously been home schooled had been placed in the previous grade level. Only a handful of the previous public/private schoolers had lost a grade.

Also, my mom screened several different schools in the area before placing us. At least two of the other private schools she looked at told her up front that they almost always put entering home schoolers into the previous grade because they just can't keep up with the other students. This infuriated her, so she immediately stopped considering them as worthy schools. She felt that any school that would dare suggest a home schooler could not keep up with their students must have something wrong with it. In the end, she settled on the one we went to because they did not tell her that up front. They simply told her that they test all incoming students for placement. It was after I started going to school there that I found out that all the others who had been home schooled were also put back a grade.

Some people on this thread have mentioned that there are public schoolers who are also behind. That's true. There are students in any form of education who lag behind the others. Regardless of whether a child is home schooled or traditionally schooled, a parent's involvment in the education is important. What sort of measures would it be appropriate for governing authorities to take (in the context of parental authority) when dealing with students in public schools whose parents very obviously take no part in the educational process? Mandatory tutoring, perhaps? Imposing a fine on the parents if they do not agree to go to a certain number of parent/teacher conferences or have some sort of system where they sign off on their child's homework each night?

I find this fascinating. Thank you for sharing those experiences, but I might also add that even traditional schooled students are kept back and not necessarily because they aren't smart enough. There is a social development aspect that, if you are home-schooled, you just can't achieve to the level of public or even private schools. You may be able to bang through a Calculus test at the age of 10, but have the social skills of a kindergartner. That is very important in placing people into group settings. It is difficult and awkward at times.

[Neevil]

I find this fascinating. Thank you for sharing those experiences, but I might also add that even traditional schooled students are kept back and not necessarily because they aren't smart enough. There is a social development aspect that, if you are home-schooled, you just can't achieve to the level of public or even private schools. You may be able to bang through a Calculus test at the age of 10, but have the social skills of a kindergartner. That is very important in placing people into group settings. It is difficult and awkward at times.
That's a good point. However, most of the homeschoolers I know are very social. Most of them are even more mature than kids who go to regular school. I suppose it depends what social skills are measured by. Public schoolers tend to talk more, but not nessisarily about anything important. Home schoolers usually aren't as "giddy" and talkative, but most of the time can have a more mature and intellectual conversation.

[Ephinie]

As far as the social aspect of home schooling goes, I think I mentioned somewhere in a previous post that most of the home schoolers I have known personally are behind in social skills. They also tend to be more dependent on their parents, even as young adults. It's pretty easy to tell, in a college setting, who has been home schooled and who hasn't based on how they interact. I would not say the home schooled ones are more mature or independent, either. A lot of home schooled students that graduated with my class actually moved back in with their parents after graduation as well. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with moving back in with your parents, but it does show some what of a lack of independence. Someone who is living on his/her own and supporting him/herself financially is by default more independent than those living in their parents' homes. Those living on their own are going to be more mature as well.

I don't think that those who are home schooled automatically HAVE to suffer ill effects to their social skills, though. A lot of home schoolers get involved in home school "communities" where groups of home school families get together on a regular basis for activities and stuff. This provides important social interaction, but it is still somewhat limiting - the kids aren't going to be exposed to a wide variety of people or views this way. Most home school families share similar values, political views, and religious beliefs. Not the same, mind you, but similar. So, it is also important for home school kids to be involved in other sorts of activities. Being active in church and youth group can play an important role, but I personally think there needs to be some sort of "secular" social environment that can be experienced as well. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are GREAT for kids to be involved in, whether they are home schooled or traditionally schooled. Our family was involved in both, until I was yanked from Girl Scouts at age 12 because my mother decided they were too feminist. We continued to be involved in Boy Scouts, though - I have three brothers. Obviously, I wasn't a Boy Scout myself, but they do tons of activities in which the whole family can partake. Additionally, I think 4-H is a good club for kids, especially home schooled ones. I was never in it myself, but I knew several young people growing up who had a great time doing it. Another good thing for home schooled kids that help with social skills is for them to get involved in community sports programs. My older brother played soccer growing up, and my two younger ones did Little League. These weren't public school-sponsored sports, they were local community groups. Also, some communities have amateur theater clubs that kids can join. Then there are things like ballet lessons and karate class. Though this is something that home schoolers butt heads against the local public schools with often, most states DO require that home schoolers can take part in public school-sponsored after school activities. Any clubs or sports that the public schools have available, home schoolers CAN join.

So while, in my personal experience, almost ALL home schoolers I have met have had very poor social skills (and that includes myself and my brothers, though my own social skills have greatly improved since moving away from home, going to college, and having more exposure to the outside world), it is something that can logically be avoided. I think it is also important to note that students who attend public or private schools who simply go to school and then come home each day without ever doing things outside the classroom will also suffer ill effects to their social skills. After school activities, extra-cirricular activities, and social activities that are unrelated to school are important in developing good social habits for all children. Things like scouting and other stuff that gets kids involved in being more community-concious are especially helpful. When you think about it, how valuable IS the kind of social interaction that kids get during the school day in public and private schools? Yeah, there's talk and drama between classes, but they spend the majority of the day in class. Passing notes around and whispering behind the teachers back doesn't exactly teach good social skills anyways. I tend to think that it's mainly from the extra-cirricular activities that kids get their critical social skills. So, again, these are all things that home schoolers can join.

So given all of these factors, and getting back onto the subject as it relates to parental authority - I do not think that the state should have any right to deny someone home schooling based upon social considerations. State jurisdiction in the area of FORM of shcooling should end with academics. After all, the state does not check up on public and private schoolers to make sure that their social skills are developing properly.

What was mentioned about having a certified teacher look over the year's work to determine progress is, I think, just as good an option as yearly testing. This is a more personalized way to measure progress, and the parents can get guidance if they need it as well. My last year of school, when I returned to home schooling right after my Freshman year of high school at my private school, I had a certified teacher working with me. The work I was doing was way beyond my mom. April, the girl who was working with me, had just graduated from college the year before with a degree in teaching. She taught seventh grade math at the local middle school as well as helping me out. The two of us worked at a dizzyingly fast pace, which my mom would never have been able to keep up with - and then add to that the fact that the work I was doing was too advanced for my mom to be of any help with. This brings up the question of why my mom listed me as a drop out when I had someone who met the requirements working with me, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact that she did not want to be accountable to the state for anything. This is the main point of contention between my view and my mother's view - She believes that forcing home schoolers to be accountable to the state in any way for their education is a violation of parental authority. I do not. I think there is nothing wrong with requiring that children be educated, and home schoolers should not get special treatment in regard to this issue just because they are home schooled.

As for the testing, the tests I took year after year (not just while home schooling, but also in private school) were either the Stafford Achievement Test or the California Achievement Test. These tests do not test on ideology or on theory (such as evolution). They focus mostly math and reading comprehension. Subjects such as history and science have questions that are very static and factual, such as, "In what year did the War of 1812 begin?" A lot of the science questions, I remember, involved working from graphs or charts provided right there on the page. They do not tend to ask things of a subjective nature. Thus, I do not think it is a valid complaint for home school parents to say they don't want their children tested because they get tested on public school cirriculum when they are home schooling for the purpose of keeping their kids away from public school cirriculum.

[inkspot]

I agree that having a teacher look over the curriculum and a student's progress is just as good as testing the student regularly, but I agree also with Ephinie that the standardized tests are a good way to make sure the student is keeping pace, too.

I whole-heartedly support home schooling and the voucher system for helping subsidize private schooling, because I don't like any more state intervention in our families than is absolutely necessary. But I do think some accountability is necessary because it's clear not all parents have the capability to home school their kids, and not even all private schools hire qualified people to teach -- and if the parents and private schools won't take responsibility for getting the kids a good education, the state does need to step in, for the sake of the kids.

[Neevil]

I think end of the year testing should be required to make sure the kids are at least learning the minimal. If they don't do well on the test one year, I don't think they should be sent to public school. Being homeschooled myself, I know that sometimes there are circumstances which are out of our control, and cause us to fall behind. Homeschoolers also have the advantage of being able to catch up during the summer. (it's not fun... trust me, but you gotta do what ya gotta do ;) ) So just because the child falls behind on a couple of subjects for one year, does not nessisarily mean they're going to have a horrible education. If they're behind on the end of the year test for two years in a row, then I think it would be good to bring in the teacher, to look over their work. I usually take the IOWA test every year. I have always done well on it, but only about 10-20% of what I learn each year is even covered on the test. I know it has already been discussed that some homeschoolers do not like to expse their kids to public school curriculum, for whatever reasons. So perhaps they taught their children a whole lot of stuff that year, but it was not what is being taught in school. So the children didn't test well, because they learned entirely different material.

For example, my mom teaches us history, rather than social studies. So when I come to the social studies section of the IOWA test, I don't know a lot of it, at least, not the way they ask it. But even though I didn't know how to answer a few questions in social studies, I learned a ton of history, none of which was on the test.

So for determining whether or not a child should be sent to public school, it shouldn't be as simple as "He flunked math this year, you can't homeschool him any more." First they need to make sure the child is consistantly failing, in more than one subject, for more than one year. Also, the end of the year tests mostly show what a child does not know. The goverment will need to judge the child on what he does know. This is where the teacher comes in, and looks over the children's work. If the kid's work is still not where it should be, then pursuaded or forced public school should be considered.

That's my little theory I thought up today... I know it's sort of complicated, but this is a complicated issue. I don't think there really can be one right or wrong way to govern homeschooling, because each case and family has to be looked at individually. All curcumstances have to be taken into consideration.

[Anarnian]

Well, I do have a few things to say on the social life of homeschoolers. I myself am, and have been, a "public schooler." However many, if not most, of my friends from church have been homeschooled all their life. Most of these people have a active social life, and have matured socially. But (and I know someone said this before...) their society is other children from homeschooled families with the same values, interests, upbringing, etc. Therefore, as you might guess, they are still just as sheltered, naiive (not necessarily a bad thing, but can be). So I disagree that most homeschoolers have no social skills; they can interact just as well as anyone with other people, it is the whole secular world that they have trouble with. Therin lies, in my opinion, the major MAJOR drawback of homeschooling. In my experience, homeschoolers are so sheltered all their childhood. So when they finally get into the world, it is extremely overwhelming and they are simply not prepared for it. But I think I am digressing from what I was saying earlier. I said MOST of the homeschoolers I know have an active social life. One family, though, does not involve their children in enough extracirrcular (sp? sorry) activities. The kids, while sweet enough, have not matured socially at all. The heartbreaking part is that one of them, my friend, might be going into public school for the first time if her grades don't improve. Eighth grade. Where everyone already has found their place in school. Where she'll be exposed for the first time to people cussing everywhere she turns, and ummm, inapropriate jokes. Personally, I love public school. But I grew up in it; I don't see how my friend is going to handle it. But at least she is going "into the world" (that doesn't seem like the right way to put it...but at the moment I can't think of anything better )for the first time instead of waiting till she's an adult when it will be even harder. And so I think that by sheltering their kids from "the world", parents who decide to homeschool for that reason are actually putting their kids at a disadvantage instead of doing them a favor. But that's not the case with all homeschooling families, please don't let me offend anyone.

[Neevil]

That is probably the major draw back to homeschooling, I think. However, they will get into "the world" eventually, so I don't know if it's that bad. I mean, in public school kids are vulnerable. They're there since they were five. They're too little to know what's right or wrong, or what they believe exactly. Then, they get used to the inapropriate behavior going on.

Homeschoolers have a chance to be taught all this before going into "the world". So then, they have a firm foundation for their beliefs before they're even questioned.

I realize not everone who's homeschooled is like this, and not everyone who's public schooled is like this. I know plenty of public schoolers who have kept their Christian morals, and I know homeschoolers who have not. I'm just trying to say that homeschoolers have the oppertunity to be taught this beforehand, while public schoolers are immeadiately thrown into a whirlwind of people, beliefs, and such, and aren't as able to be as discerning.

Now of course, the disadvantage for homeschoolers is that they are sheltered a lot (but not completely...) and are a little shocked when they see the way some people act and behave. But what's better? To be a little surprised, but keep a Christian worldview, or to become callous to it, and maybe not abandon your faith completely, but perhaps comprimise it a little?

There are pro's and con's to both. I personally think it's better to give your kids a strong moral foundation before sending them out into the world, than just throwing them out there and letting them figure it out as they go along. Yes, homeschoolers do have to adjust a little, but I think most adapt fairly quickly. When homeschoolers grow up and go to college, I'm sure initially it may take some getting used to, but in the long run I think they'll be perfectly fine.

[broken.]

Neevil makes some good points. From my experience in college, home schoolers do adjust eventually... even though, as I said before, it's pretty easy to tell from talking to someone who has been home schooled and who hasn't. And there comes a point in everyone's life when it's time to grow up, period. I don't see any great harm in one person coming to that point at age 25 whereas another came to that point at age 17. I think it's also important to note, however, that public school kids aren't just being thrown into the world with no moral backround. Their parents are still raising them as they receive their education, and theoretically their parents are teaching them morals every step of the way as they go along. I don't see any basis for thinking that home schooled kids receive a stronger moral backround or are taught better Christian ethics than any given public school kid who comes from a Christian family.

Also, regardless of whether one is home schooled or traditionally educated, it comes down to personal choice. Each person has to choose what they will embrace and what they will reject, be it morality or the opposite of it. No matter what one is exposed to during their formative years, each person has to choose to behave morally or to not. While public school kids may have more of a tendency to lean toward "worldliness," than home schoolers, the home schoolers have their own pitfall to maneuver around - an attitude of ignorance. Either one, in my opinion, is just as bad as the other. There is nothing good about being ignorant, just as their is nothing good about behaving immorally.

To give an example of what I mean by this, "attitude of ignorance...." A situation that I have found myself in from time to time, particularly dealing with a group of people who are mixed between home schoolers and public schoolers, is that the home schoolers will over-emphasize their wordly ignorance as if it is a good thing. For example, someone tells a dirty joke. People laugh, but the home schooler will say something like,

"I don't get it." People will then try to explain the joke to the home schooler, and the home schooler will cover his or her ears and emphatically state that they don't want to know... they take pride in their innocence. It is deemed better to be innocent than to know such things. All right. That's fine, but the attitude is what causes the problem. There is a HUGE difference between being innocent and being ignorant and naive. Innocence and discretion are something to be prized, but ignorance and naivety are not good things... and people mix them up all the time. It's this attitude of, "I don't know, I don't want to know, and that makes me a better person," that distinguishes a lot of home schoolers from others. This is the pitfall home schoolers must overcome that counters the public school pitfall of becoming too secularized. They are opposite ends of the spectrum. Sadly, a lot of home schoolers are taught that their ignorance is a good thing, while few would admit that they think immorality is a good thing.

Either way, as the subject relates to parental authority and how far the state has a right to go... I think it is clear that any state involvement in the whole area of public vs. home schooling should be limited to academics. It is far beyond the realm of the state to regulate what morals parents are teaching their children at home. Theoretically, if parents taught their children that we are all spawned from purple-spotted Martians who wear hoola-hoops on their ankles, the state would have nothing to say about it. As long as the home schoolers are able to perform as well on tests as their public/private school counterparts or have a certified teacher stamp their work to show they are getting the basics of education, the state should be satisfied.

EDIT!!!: I would just like to point out for the record that this post was not made by broken. It was made by me, EPHINIE! This is what happens when broken. leaves herself logged in ON MY COMPUTER. That is all.

[Ephinie]

So yeah... like I said... the above post was made by me.

[Neevil]

As far as the moral backround, I meant more than just basic religion. In my family, we incorporate our Christian worldview into everything we do. Science, history, liturature, etc. Through science, I know how Christianity stands up to the earth and the world around us; what parts can be supported, and what parts are weak. Through history we learn where Christianity came from, and the result it has had on all the people and countries who have practiced it, and those who have not. By learning everything in this way, I know where Christianity comes from, and why I believe it is true.

I am the only homeschooler in my church. All of the kids in my youthgroup are really sweet, and are strong Christians. They are all in public or private school, and they definately are able to discern between different befiefs and morals behaviors. But they don't know why they believe in Christianity. If they came on this forum, and looked at some of the issues being discussed, they might say that the Bible isn't sexist, or that abortion is wrong, but they wouldn't be able to tell you why.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that homeschoolers have all the answers, they don't. But as a Christian, homeschoolers are much more able to learn Christian values than public schoolers. The teens in my youthgroup, I love them to death, but some of the questions they ask amaze me, because i just assumed that everyone knew it already... When I thought about it, I remembered that the only reason I knew it was because it was something I learned in history. So when I said that about the moral backrounds, I meant more than just basic religion. I suppose, in theory, that a parent could teach their public schoolers more in depth, but that would be like attending two schools. I can barely handle one, and I don't see how anyone could go to two, unless they were extremely smart.

And of course, like you said, it is personal choice. No amount of influences can change a person's mind, one way or the other, if they are firm in their beliefs, whatever they may be.

What you said about ignorance is very true. I think that is one of the only downfalls of homeschooling. Achademically, most homeschoolers are all right. Socially, they can be fine depending on how involved they are with outside activities. Ignorance can only be changed by experience, though.

Public schoolers, however, get used to a lot of things that they should probably not get used to. There are some things that would shock me, but my public schooled friends act like it's nothing. Because they're surrounded by it all they time, they've gotten used to it and don't really view it as wrong. They think it's ok.

Now I don't think it's good that so many homeschoolers are ignorant, but, just as Ephinie pointed out, anyone can be innocent. "Be in the world but not of the world," is very fitting, here. Homeschoolers need to know about things, but that doesn't mean that they have to do them. They can still keep their innocence. Public schoolers can, as well. There are several girls at my church who are a great example of this. They are public schooled, and they are the sweetest, most kind and loving people you could ever meet. They have definately kept their "innocence". People notice, too, that they are different from other kids at school.

I agree that only achademics should be governed. There is a big difference in making sure kids are prepared for life with a good education, and poking into every aspect of their lives, whether it be socially, religiously, or anything else.

*sigh* And now I'm really sick of talking about homeschoolers... I think we've exhausted the subject LOL. What about medical treatments? I believe you asked whether or not a child should be deprived of necessary treatment if went against the parents' religious beliefs? I've been thinking about this and I really don't know... It seems like a more touchy subject than the others. I'm interested in seeing what ya'll think.

[Ephinie]

*sigh* And now I'm really sick of talking about homeschoolers... I think we've exhausted the subject LOL. What about medical treatments? I believe you asked whether or not a child should be deprived of necessary treatment if went against the parents' religious beliefs? I've been thinking about this and I really don't know... It seems like a more touchy subject than the others. I'm interested in seeing what ya'll think.Yes, I had mentioned medical treatments. There are some types of treatments that are contrary to the parents religious beliefs. I think I used the example of blood transfusions before, but here's another... There are some families who do not believe in getting children vaccinated. The reasons are usually that they say vaccinations are more dangerous than just taking your chances with the disease. I'm thinking mainly of the basic vaccinations, like for mumps, measles, tetnis, chicken pox, and stuff like that. Should the state be able to mandate that children receive these medications regardless of what the parents want for their children?

Getting shots is a little bit different than other medical treatments in that shots are preventative - it's not quite the same as if the child is sick right now and needs care right now that the parent is refusing to get. Even if a child doesn't receive their proper vaccinations, there is no certainty that they absolutely WILL get that disease. However, it can also be viewed as a public health issue. Vaccinations are essential if you are trying to wipe a certain disease out in a specific area. If a child is not vaccinated against a certain disease, and they get that disease, they can then spread it to anyone else who also hasn't gotten their shots yet. Thus, it can be a serious issue.

Still, though... vaccinations are preventative, not curative. So, should a parent have the authority to say,

"I don't want my child to receive a measles vaccine,"?

Does it matter what the parent's reason for saying this is, or should they be able to say it for any reason - even something as simple as that they just don't feel like taking their child to the doctors to get it. In other words, would it be all right for a parent to refuse to have their child vaccinated if it was because they believed vaccinations did more harm than good as opposed to it not being all right to refuse vaccinations because one is too lazy to take one's child to the doctor's office? And if it is not okay for parents to choose to not have their children vaccinated, to what extent should civil authorities be allowed to intervene?

[Sunrise]

I was speaking to some family members about this once. They are real naturalists, into all the herbal remedy stuff and organic everything, so I kind of expected them to be in the "no vaccination" camp, which I had run into a lot because I was under some chiropractic care at the time, and my chiropractor was totally anti-vaccine. To my surprise, these cousins said they had had their child vaccinated, and the dad said something very sensible: "We had the choice not to do it, but only because most other people choose otherwise." In other words, he recognized that his child's chances of getting these illnesses would be very low even if she weren't vaccinated, not because she would somehow be healthier, but because everyone ELSE presumably was doing the responsible thing and vaccinating their kids. He wasn't willing to bet his child's health on other parents' decisions, so he went ahead with the vaccines.

I think it's rather naive of parents not to have their kids vaccinated, but I don't know that government should have the power to force them. There's already a lot of pressure anyway - I think in some states your kids can't go to public school unless they've had their shots - but really it seems to me that un-vaccinated kids are only a danger to themselves. If they do contract a disease, the only kids they can spread it to are the other un-vaccinated ones - at which point the parents have only themselves to blame. This may be harsh on the kids, but it isn't the government's job to police everyone's health decisions unless those decisions influence the overall public health in some major way (and even then, depending on how politically correct the solution is - we all know that AIDS is very easy to prevent, for example, yet it's still rampant because of pressure from special-interest groups). Taken to extremes, you could say that a government that could force vaccinations should also enforce things like a healthy diet and excercise - since childhood obesity is a far worse problem than the occasional outbreak of chicken pox.