cat mom 🌹🍒 @vanillanegress - Tumblr Blog

The answer to "How did these Ancient People do this????" is basically always

1. A lot of dudes. Just a ton of fucking people from beginning to end of the process.

2. Ancient people weren't stupid, they just figured shit out the same way we do: fuck around until you find out.

3. We're gonna plan this out and it's gonna take ten fucking years, and you will cope.

4. Sticks and string are surprisingly versatile and can be used for a variety of purposes, like moving stuff and making sure things are even and go in the spot you wanted to put them in!

5. I want to make this easier and more efficient to move. If I put this on the round thing and push, it will move. If I put this in water, it will move. If I get some animals and rope and have a whole bunch of them drag it, it will move. All of these things are a better option than one guy trying to pick the whole fucking thing up.

mankillercalledbunny

"I'm not calling the people who believe in this conspiracy theory racist" I am. They're racist. Maybe not out of malice, but the fact that they believe in this is in itself racist. These conspiracies are always about brown people. Machu Pichu, the Pyramids, Göbekli Tepe, Easter Island, it is ALWAYS POC. It's never the Parthenon, it's never the Colliseum, despite the fact that these were built around the same time as some of the other sites these conspiracy chucklefucks like to throw around, it's never something fucking European. It's always "primitive people" with "stone tools" and "no understanding of modern engineering" so "clearly someone must have taught them this or given them the technology because CLEARLY they were just too Primitive and Savage to figure it out themselves." Fuck off with that shit.

fandomsandfeminism

When people get pregnant, they will give up smoking, give up alcohol, give up coffee and soda, give up fondue and raw cheese, give up cold cuts and sushi, all because they have heard somewhere, from someone, that these things can be bad for the baby. They don’t know the research, haven’t looked at the studies, can’t talk about sample sizes and control groups. But their dedication to their future child’s safety is so strong, their caution is so overpowering, that they give up these things just in case.

So it baffles me when those same people will insist on spanking their kids.

Even when they are shown the research.

Regardless of what the experts in the field say.

No matter who says it.

Or how it is said.

People are so invested in this ability to hit their kids without judgement or consequence, that it absolutely confounds me.

fandomsandfeminism

I’m just going to say this- if you come on this post, which specifically critiques spanking children, ignore all the links which provide evidence for why spanking is bad, and argue that you either DO or WILL spank your own children -

You are either an intentionally bad parent and/or a deeply damaged child.

We can forgive our parents for fucking up in their ignorance and acting out on their own damage. You don’t have to condemn them or hate them for it. They loved us, and they weren’t perfect.

But you are your own person and you have an obligation to be better.

rpepperpotshipssciencebros

I think most people agree that hitting a baby hard enough to make them cry is not OK. In fact, you could be brought up on abuse charges for it. Non-consensually hitting an adult hard enough to make them cry is illegal as well; it’s assault/battery.

So why do some people believe that there is there some nebulous age in which it’s perfectly OK to hit someone hard enough to make them cry? Someone who is too young and too small to even defend themselves against you? Someone who you are supposed to protect?

doctorbones

“When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor’s wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn’t believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking–the first of his life. And she told him that he would have to go outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, “Mama, I couldn’t find a switch, but here’s a rock that you can throw at me.”

All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child’s point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone. And the mother took the boy onto her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because violence begins in the nursery–one can raise children into violence.“

- Astrid Lindgren, Never Violence

captain-snark

That nebulous age is “old enough to have done something to “deserve” corporal punishment but too young/vulnerable to hit back.” This child did something I didn’t like and instead of being a parent I’m going to traumatize it right out of them.

Babies are entirely helpless, we can’t manipulate them into behaving a certain way (mostly) but once a child is old enough to have their behavior shaped by an adult its easier to just hit than have to deal with the reality that sometimes being a parent means dealing with things you don’t like, because just like that baby, children can’t help the things they do.

Parents that strike children were never taught how to cope with their emotions. That’s what it comes down to.

Timmy is having a temper tantrum, something must be very distressing to have a person acting this way. Lets try and figure out what’s wrong with Timmy and then we can fix it and come up with better ways of dealing with it instead of having a temper tantrum.

Timmy’s parents take ten minutes to discover Timmy’s major melt down was his sock felt funny in his shoe. Timmy’s parents teach Timmy to tell them these things in the future instead of getting upset first. Everyone goes home happy.

Meanwhile, Peter’s parents can’t handle Peter having emotions and needs that aren’t absolutely immediately obvious and since Peter is just a tot he can’t simply explain his predicament to his parents.

His parents have never learned how to communicate with anyone about their needs and emotions and so their own override their child’s. Let us strike Peter and he will learn that temper tantrums will not be tolerated. Peter shuts up but his problems are never solved.

But his parents go home happy.

Peter needs therapy in the future to unpack a Lifetime of Oppressed Emotions.

I hate to break it to parents sometimes, but unfortunately, your entire point is to make sure that child is the most functional adult it can be. How do you do that? By letting them act like children now, so they don’t act like children later.

bendingsignpost

My grandmother once told me why she was so anti-spanking, both as a parent and as a social worker:

The only times she could remember being spanked were times when she was absolutely certain she was being unfairly punished. The only lesson you can learn from that is not one parents mean to teach you. And as a very much older woman stubborning her way through life, she is to this day pissed.

randomslasher

The best explanation I ever heard against spanking was this:

If the child is old enough to understand words, then you should use your words. If the child isn’t old enough to understand words, then they also won’t understand why you are hurting them.

cluegrrl

All being spanked as a child taught me was that if a parent was angry, I would get spanked for something. Even if it was something that didn’t matter on any other day, if they were mad, and needed to hit something, then I was going to be it. It taught me that my parents couldn’t control themselves, and I lost respect for them WAY faster than they were prepared for.

craycrayblujay

additionally the number 1 way to make sure your kid gets abused by other people (because they’re so used to being abused by you), abuses others (because they believe this behaviour is normal/an acceptable way to handle emotions and problems), or ✨️both✨️

sagekjs21

The only exception that I would make as far as spanking my child goes would be if they were too young to understand the consequences of their actions and got themselves into a dangerous situation. For example, running out into the middle of the street. Something life-threateningly dangerous. If they touch a hot stove then they already got the consequence, they don’t need additional punishment. But if they run out into a street where they could get hit by a car and they are three or four years old and cannot understand the concept of traffic very well, that would be the exceptionally rare occasion that I would spank my child. However, I would not do it hard enough to leave a bruise and I would not use an item. The reason I would use this punishment here is because since it would be such a rare punishment for me to use, it would certainly get their attention. If they’re getting into a life-threatening situation, and if they are too young to understand why it is life-threatening, they need something to get their attention. But for any other situation, just simply bad behavior or if the child is old enough to comprehend concepts that are a tiny bit more abstract, no, spanking will never be used in my house.

fandomsandfeminism

I want you to consider this question- if your child is too young to understand that traffic is dangerous, are they old enough to understand *why* you are hitting them? Will they actually connect the ideas “Being spanked hurt, I was spanked because I was near the road, so the road is dangerous” or will they just know that their parents hit them for some reason?

If a child is too young to understand the logic, you’re hoping that Operant Conditioning will alter their behavior, but operant conditioning takes time and repetition. How many times are you prepared to hit your kid to condition them away from traffic? (Instead of, you know, not allowing them to be unattended around traffic until they are old enough to be told about the danger?)

sagekjs21

OK, first of all I’m a psychology major so I know quite a bit about operant conditioning, and your logic is flawed. This would be more of a classic conditioning situation, think Pavlov’s dogs. My children would know that going near the road unattended can lead to being spanked. You’re also under the assumption that I would leave them unattended which is absolutely not true. However, children are capable of running very fast so this would be a precaution, not a standard. While a three or four-year-old may not understand the logic behind traffic, they can certainly understand that if they go near the road without mom or dad they will experience a very mild amount of pain. This is not abuse, this is protection. And believe me, I have definitely considered your question before. I have been thinking about this subject for literally over 20 years. I’ve made up my mind.

fandomsandfeminism

Even with all the evidence that spanking does more harm than good, you’ve made up your mind. Even when you acknowledge that you’re hitting them specifically at an age where they are unable to apply logic to the situation.

It’s important that the “mild amount of pain” isn’t just a natural consequence of being near traffic, but something being *done to them* by a caregiver. Someone they love *hurt* them “for their own good.” It’s not a natural consequence. It’s a choice you’re making. One that they cannot apply your logic to, because they are too young to use logic.

But you’ve made up your mind.

sagekjs21

I never called it a natural consequence, so I’m not really sure where you got that idea from. But no, you’re absolutely right, it would be a choice, not a consequence. The natural consequence would be to leave my kid in the street and let them get hit by a car. Would that be better?

Keep in mind one very important factor. I said that I would never hit my child with an item and also that I would not hit them hard enough to leave a bruise. Those are exceptionally important circumstances too. And how often is my child going to run out into the road if they are an average kid? It’s not like this is going to be happening every day. This would probably only happen a maximum of three times in the amount of years that I’m talking about this type of punishment being warranted. Will it cause a mild amount of pain? Yes, but a mild amount of pain versus their life? Why is there even a question here?

I’m not talking about spanking my child if they’re throwing a temper tantrum, spanking them if they broke a vase or a dish, spanking them for talking back to myself or their father, spanking them for fighting with their sibling. Like I said, that’s all going back to lazy parenting. And, most importantly, I would never spank my child out of anger. That is where the abuse factor comes in. I’m talking about strictly in like an exceptionally dangerous or life-threatening situation. So yes, I have in fact made up my mind. Knowing that I’m putting my child’s life above their emotions will help me sleep very well at night as a mother. I mean, I can’t honor and validate their emotions if they’re dead, can I?

korrasera

Since you’re a psychology major I’m going to assume that means you’re still studying and haven’t graduated yet. I’m also guessing that means you haven’t done any units that cover operant conditioning yet given what you’ve said thus far.

Operant conditioning takes time and repeated practice to implement. You’d need to watch for your child to run out into the street, hit them, and then repeat that process many times. And since regular repetition is important to any conditioning process, you’d have to engineer the situations because waiting a month or two between sessions wouldn’t work.

And that’s to change your child’s behavior to address a problem that you say yourself will only be useful maybe three times during the part of their childhood where they won’t know to not run into the street.

Let me reframe that for you:

You’re willing to traumatize your child, because being struck by your caregiver is traumatic for any child, to alleviate your fears over a scenario that you fear could happen if you experience a lapse in your duty as a caregiver.

To put a finer point on it:

You’re afraid that you might fail as a parent, so you’re willing to hit your child in the hopes that you won’t fail as a parent. And that’s easy to justify to yourself because you use the fear of your child dying to win the argument you’re having with yourself.

That’s not parental behavior. That’s just a different kind of abusive behavior. It has nothing to do with the child or what danger they might face, it’s all about your fears.

You see the exact same kind of behavior with parents who can’t deal with their child growing to independence in adolescence. They get abusive because they are so wrapped up in their own fears that they lose the ability to make good decisions for their child.

So they remove the door to their child’s room, or they control their child’s money, or they threaten to throw the child out, all because they fear losing control over their child. They aren’t concerned about their child, they’re worried about losing control. Only being a parent means you eventually lose control of them because part of being a parent is helping them grow up enough that they can fly on their own.

Until they’re old enough to know better, you have to be there to pick them up and keep them out of the street. Every. Single. Time. It is your duty as a parent. Hitting them is not.

Hitting them isn’t an option. It’s just abuse.

sagekjs21

@korrasera No, I actually completed my studies quite some time ago. I have earned my degree and graduated. I earned my degree in the summer of 2012. So granted I will absolutely admit that I am fairly rusty.

As I’ve said, I’m not aiming for operant conditioning here, strictly classical. I want my child to associate going out in the street unaccompanied by an adult with a sense of that being incredibly wrong, whether that would mean a hint of pain or a hint of fear. I don’t want them to think that running unaccompanied out into the road is a safe or fun activity. And yes, I am well aware that conditioning takes time. That much I do definitely remember. But I also remember that when Pavlov was doing his experiment with his dogs, it took a lot less time than he was assuming. Although to be quite honest I don’t remember the specifics as far as time amounts go other than I remember his surprise at what he ended up discovering.

Is spanking traumatic? In many cases definitely, I would agree with that. In all cases? No. No it is not, because that would mean that literally every single child brought up in the United States public school system from like the 1920s through the 1970s would have severe trauma. And this is simply not true. Corporal punishment ran rampant in public schools in America back in those days, and, while there are certainly some traumatized adults for sure, not everybody is going around with complex trauma.So this argument is just simply not true. In order to truly deduce how traumatic spanking is to a child, there would have to be a lot more research done than is currently being done. Also, every child to ever receive any kind of spanking, even if they only received one in their entire childhood, would have to be studied for decades beyond their childhood just to ensure the accuracy of the study. This is simply not possible. Child abuse is absolutely traumatizing, I will never diminish that. But a SWAT on the butt or the wrist that causes literally about 15 seconds worth of pain and leaves no mark and that is implemented maybe a maximum of five times in a child’s life is not going to lead to PTSD by any means. there would have to be some other factor involved, some other type of abuse going on.

I’m under the assumption that I will fail as a parent. On the contrary, I know full well that I will fail my child in some respect as a parent. Why? Because there is no such thing as a perfect parent. There are great parents, there are Zent parents, there are negligent parents, and there are abusive parents. There are also parents that are quite inconsistent. I strive to be a great parent, but I have no delusions that I will be a perfect parent by any means. That simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how educated someone is, how hard someone tries, how kind, loving, patient, perfection and parenting simply will never exist. So will I fail? Absolutely. And I pray it won’t be too severely.

But if my kid accidentally runs out into the middle of the street, if I am simply too slow to catch them and if I’m calling their name and they don’t stop, that is not a failure on my part. That is simply an unfortunate happening, an unfortunate event. I tried my best, I wasn’t ignoring my child, I was just too slow. The reality is, I’m partially blind. I don’t see well in bright sunlight, so if it’s bright and sunny outside and my kid runs out into the middle of the road, I will absolutely chase after them, but what if I trip on something on the ground? Is that my fault? No, it’s just an unfortunate happening. This has nothing to do with me fearing my future role as a mother, not at all. This has to do with practicality. It has to do with safety measures. It has to do with prevention.

I completely agree with your third to last paragraph. Everything in that is golden, I’m totally with you. But again, this has nothing to do with my fear of failure. It has to do with safety. It doesn’t matter how attentive a parent is, unless you keep your child in a plastic bubble literally, you cannot protect them from absolutely everything. It is simply impossible. For instance, you have to sleep at some point correct? You can’t supervise them 24 hours a day. You can do your best and that’s all you can do. And this is why small, fairly harmless, preventative measures are necessary. I’m not afraid of failing my child, I’m afraid that in the event I could not get to them fast enough their life could be in danger. That’s a rational and reasonable fear. It has nothing to do with me being inadequate, it has to do with life being complicated. But I’m with you on parents not letting their kids become independent adult adults in adolescence, that’s completely abusive and selfish and just plain wrong. So at least we agree there.

korrasera

1) That’s not classical conditioning. Classical conditioning modifies the reaction to a stimulus, not acted behaviors. If you’re trying to change a child’s behavior as you suggest, you’re talking about operant conditioning.

Also, if you wouldn’t do it to an adult you shouldn’t be doing it to a child.

2) Yes, in all cases it’s traumatic, as in it can create a trauma for the victim. You’re acting like it’s traumatic because of intensity and it’s not, it’s traumatic depending on how their developing brain interprets what happens. (but yeah, it’s caused a ton of trauma too, and obviously so, you just aren’t willing to acknowledge that it exists)

The action you’re advocating is always the same, a caregiver inflicting harm on their child. If it doesn’t traumatize the child, that doesn’t mean you got the pressure right.

It means you got lucky.

That, in fact, is part of what all of this research is telling you and why people like fandomsandfeminism talk about this topic in the hopes it’ll educate people.

You can come up with as many excuses as you like, but all of the research along with all of the lived experiences of the many people who have been traumatized by it prove that you’re wrong.

3) Yes, you’re still trying to defend your fear of failure. Otherwise you wouldn’t be lobbying so hard to convince the rest of the world that it’s okay to strike an innocent child.

You set stakes that you think make it acceptable.

Those stakes don’t make it acceptable.

It’s abuse just like other kinds of abuse inflicted on children. You aren’t the arbiter of when it’s an acceptable level of abuse or not, and exercising your power over a powerless child to do that is an extremely unethical way to behave.

But like fandomsandfeminism already said, you’ve made up your mind.

I just wanted to make your position clear for everyone else.

Don’t hit your kids. It’s not a hard lesson to learn.

frogeyedape

Important thing to notice here: hitting a child AFTER they’ve run into the road is not a preventative measure. It is REACTIVE.

Let’s look at the scenario again, shall we? Unattended child [she says her child will never be unattended but may run unattended into the road. Ignore the straw man and make the good faith assumption that “running into the road unattended” here means “child with attendant parent moves away from parent into the road”] runs into the road: parent is by definition not in reach to prevent this. Child is pursuing some goal [chase toy, go toward friend, whatever] and only thinking about that, child is caught [while in the road, but did they notice that detail?] and hit and probably scolded. Child’s pursuit of goal is interrupted by pain caused by distressed parent; child in pain picks up on parental distress but not WHY they’re distressed. Child likely does not associate “be in road” with “pain,” and almost definitely doesn’t associate the ACTUAL danger moment [being NEXT to a road and going INTO the road] with the pain. Therefore the reactive punishment does nothing to prevent future instances of “being in the road,” or of “GOING into the road.”

A brief diversion: both operant and classical conditioning require repetition, and stimulus/behavior must be *very closely paired in time* in order to work. A natural consequence is much more likely to be paired with its stimulus (touch hot stove, get burned). Hitting your preverbal doesn’t understand you child teaches them that the natural consequence of being NEAR YOU is pain.

Now, let’s talk about child developmental psychology and a perhaps surprising fact that makes all this operant/classical conditioning argument moot: children understand what you say long before they have the skill to say what you say. Preverbal children are in fact NOT completely noncomprehending *of language,* of social skills. You can talk to your baby before they can even crawl adeptly and they won’t understand yet, but your speech builds neural pathways. You can talk to your adept crawling pre-toddling baby and model How To Cross A Road Safely before they have ANY chance or ability to run into a road. You can make clear, every time you come to a road, “What do we do? We STOP, and look both ways, and if it’s clear [and I’m with you] then we cross.” [and I’m with you] is up to your discretion. You carry your baby across roads many many many times in your child’s life before they can walk. Repetition is key, remember?

You can model How To Play Near A Road Safely every day [hold/constrain a non-walking child, have a walking preverbal child hold your hand, keep modeling STOP at every road, and tall about it!]. Kids are frightening smart, very very good little statisticians–if every time you and your child come to a road you STOP [and also look etc if the plan is to cross], the months and YEARS of repetition will make the statistic clear to your child: when approach road, STOP. When going from grass/dirt/sidewalk to road surface: STOP first.

Model the age-appropriate behavior. Speak to your kid like they understand, cuz either A) they don’t yet, but they WILL, and what you say now affects what they learn or B) they DO understand part/some/all of what you say and can listen and *choose what to do*. Treat your child like an agent, capable of agentive decisions, capable of CHOICE, show them how to make safe choices, talk about it!

The single most overwhelming thing I remember from young childhood is adults/older kids assuming I didn’t want or couldn’t possibly utilize any kind of agency/choice in my circumstances, the sheer FRUSTRATION of being disregarded as a living thinking *choosing* creature. Giving your child agency, assuming they HAVE agency, is vital to helping them learn *how to use their agency.*

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

cat mom 🌹🍒