Abusive Parents

goose · Post by **goose** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:05 am

A couple days ago I was on a cart and there was a little boy and his father off to the side of me. I don't know why he was crying. He was a cute little boy. It looked like he would stop in a couple minutes if he was left alone.

His dad said something to him that just pissed me off. "If you don't stop crying, you're going to get a spanking."

First off, that has got to be the most fucked up way of solving a situation. He's mad at his kid for crying, so he's going to spank him. What do you think the little boy is going to do after he's spanked? Oh, I don't know, I'm willing to bet he'd CRY even longer and harder.

What is the logic in this? I don't understand it all. It would have made perfect sense if he told the kid to stop crying or he won't get ice cream, or stop crying or we are going to leave immediately. But stop crying or I'm going to spank you? And what would happen if he didn't stop crying after the spanking? Would he spank him again? Maybe smack him in the face? I personally, think it's really fucking cruel to hurt a kid and then expect him not to cry.

I think the kid eventually did stop crying. I felt so bad for him.

I'm not a parent. I used to believe spanking was totally wrong. I think I am like most people now. I believe spanking should only be used when necessary and when other options have been exhausted. I think spanking are acceptable but beatings are not.

I'm curious to hear from other parents. Have you ever spanked your child for crying? Dot you think that guy was a bit of an asshole? I did.

screnwriter · Post by **screnwriter** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:57 pm

goose wrote:His dad said something to him that just pissed me off. "If you don't stop crying, you're going to get a spanking."

Yes, definitely an idiot. I've thought that all my life that such a threat is the height of stupidity. I've only been a father for 14 months, but I've endured a lot of crying spells that required me to think very logically and try to ignore that listening to crying can be irritating. Whatever the reason the kid was crying, the father should have been able to figure it out (or else he already knew it). My wife and I never used a pacifier with our baby, so we always dealt with her crying by figuring out what made her cry, instead of shutting her up with a pacifier.

Parents don't have to "shut their baby up" for other's sake, but they should take responsibility for what is distressing their child. I've seen kids suddenly let go and pee their pants becuase the parent wasn't watching closely enough (or listening to their kids) to take care of it. That makes either one expensive day at Disneyland, or one short day. And it wouldn't have taken 5 minutes to take the child to the bathroom.

leftcoaster · Post by **leftcoaster** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:22 am

screnwriter wrote:Parents don't have to "shut their baby up" for other's sake, but they should take responsibility for what is distressing their child. I've seen kids suddenly let go and pee their pants becuase the parent wasn't watching closely enough (or listening to their kids) to take care of it. That makes either one expensive day at Disneyland, or one short day. And it wouldn't have taken 5 minutes to take the child to the bathroom.

Sorry, I disagree with that statement. If I am on an airplane, and I am trying to sleep (or even if I am not), and your kid is screaming, you should make EVERY EFFORT to keep you child quiet, and not take 15 minutes to "find out what is distressing your child."

Are you going to just let your child scream and cry in church? How about at a wedding?

Of course there are places where a child crying is not really a big deal, but where it IS a big deal, you have a responsibility to remove the child from the situation so it doesn't become destracting.

screnwriter · Post by **screnwriter** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:00 am

leftcoaster wrote:
screnwriter wrote:Parents don't have to "shut their baby up" for other's sake, but they should take responsibility for what is distressing their child. I've seen kids suddenly let go and pee their pants becuase the parent wasn't watching closely enough (or listening to their kids) to take care of it. That makes either one expensive day at Disneyland, or one short day. And it wouldn't have taken 5 minutes to take the child to the bathroom.
Sorry, I disagree with that statement. If I am on an airplane, and I am trying to sleep (or even if I am not), and your kid is screaming, you should make EVERY EFFORT to keep you child quiet, and not take 15 minutes to "find out what is distressing your child."

Are you going to just let your child scream and cry in church? How about at a wedding?

Of course there are places where a child crying is not really a big deal, but where it IS a big deal, you have a responsibility to remove the child from the situation so it doesn't become destracting.

I see your point, but if you just try to shut up the baby (who has a reason for being uncomfortable) and not find out until later that say, the baby has been constipated and has ruptured something internally, or had a bad reaction to food or medicine or something, you're not being a very good parent. I'm against pacifiers for that reason. Why does a fire alarm go off? For no reason? Because it's fussy? Would you just shut off a fire alarm, or want someone else to do so, and not try to find out what caused the alarm?

I agree that a crying child is a distraction, but as a parent I know that there's a reason for the crying. Since I don't spoil my daughter by giving her anything to keep her from crying, she only cries for a legitimate reason, and when it's taken care of, she stops crying.

Someday, when you have kids yourself, you'll know what it's like to have a child in distress and not knowing the reason immediately, and the added stress of unsympathetic people wanting you to "shut the baby up" without trying to find out the reason.

Or, to make the argument more direct - suppose you were on a plane and suddenly suffered a severe intestinal pain - so bad that you were moaning and crying with pain - and instead of anybody helping you, someone just came over and duct-taped your mouth shut so that you wouldn't bother anyone else. Do you think that would be the best course of action? By your own argument, you think that's what people should do with babies, so I'd re-think my point of view if I were you.

BRWombat · Post by **BRWombat** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:39 pm

Agreed to a point, screnwriter, a pacifier is never a substitute for parental attention -- but saying it's like duct-taping someone's mouth is probably a bit over the top.

I'm not rabidly pro-pacifier, and I'll go along that they're overused, but some kids seem to enjoy them and find them comforting, in the same way as a stuffed animal. One of my kids had one for about 18 months, the other never took to it at all. No big deal either way. And from my experience, if there is a bigger problem, a pacifier won't quiet the child anyway, at least not for long.

As for having a crying child in a public place, I'm on board with you, leftcoaster. Admittedly being on an airplane is a special case, but everywhere else -- restaurant, movie, concert, whatever -- there's a simple solution for the parent: pick up the crying child and head out the nearest exit! It's called "being considerate"! Yes, the parent will miss the end of the show, but it's better than the rest of the theater missing it.

screnwriter · Post by **screnwriter** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:51 pm

BRWombat wrote:Agreed to a point, screnwriter, a pacifier is never a substitute for parental attention -- but saying it's like duct-taping someone's mouth is probably a bit over the top.

As for having a crying child in a public place, I'm on board with you, leftcoaster. Admittedly being on an airplane is a special case, but everywhere else -- restaurant, movie, concert, whatever -- there's a simple solution for the parent: pick up the crying child and head out the nearest exit! It's called "being considerate"! Yes, the parent will miss the end of the show, but it's better than the rest of the theater missing it.

I agree with you too - to a point - which probably puts the rest of the discussion in the "point of view" bin. I can't really say that I believe pacifiers are a good idea, as I've never used one for my daughter, and we've always been able to figure out what's distressing her. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of pacifier kids who look like dolls - no expression, no curiosity, no apparent personality. My daughter has always been outgoing, curious, interested and her eyes show a lot of intelligence. I think that pacifiers stunt a lot of that, as they cause a child to fixate on that one thing. And though a pacifier might not calm a child who's in dire pain, it might shut up a child who's thirsty and that child won't be thought of for some time, by which the child could really be dehydrated.

My main point, of course, to the earlier discussion, was that a parent's number one responsibility is to their child. I think that many a time a parent isn't a good one if they let their children scream and cry, because they never taught the child to behave in a responsible manner in the first place - which I believe would probably be the main thrust of leftcoaster's argument. In that instance, yes, the parent should just take the child out and deal with the child themselves. They raised the child to be that way, and they alone should pay the penalty for the child's inability to act properly.

leftcoaster · Post by **leftcoaster** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:21 am

screnwriter wrote:I see your point, but if you just try to shut up the baby (who has a reason for being uncomfortable) and not find out until later that say, the baby has been constipated and has ruptured something internally, or had a bad reaction to food or medicine or something, you're not being a very good parent. I'm against pacifiers for that reason. Why does a fire alarm go off? For no reason? Because it's fussy? Would you just shut off a fire alarm, or want someone else to do so, and not try to find out what caused the alarm?

I agree that a crying child is a distraction, but as a parent I know that there's a reason for the crying. Since I don't spoil my daughter by giving her anything to keep her from crying, she only cries for a legitimate reason, and when it's taken care of, she stops crying.

Someday, when you have kids yourself, you'll know what it's like to have a child in distress and not knowing the reason immediately, and the added stress of unsympathetic people wanting you to "shut the baby up" without trying to find out the reason.

Or, to make the argument more direct - suppose you were on a plane and suddenly suffered a severe intestinal pain - so bad that you were moaning and crying with pain - and instead of anybody helping you, someone just came over and duct-taped your mouth shut so that you wouldn't bother anyone else. Do you think that would be the best course of action? By your own argument, you think that's what people should do with babies, so I'd re-think my point of view if I were you.

First of all, I NEVER said "duct tape the kid's mouth shut."

Second, I have two kids of my own, so don't even go there.

Three, I think that most people would groan in pain, not scream at the top of their lungs, at a frequency that would pierce eardrums, like babies usually do. I've been there. I've been through earaches, stomach viruses, etc, so I DO know that babies can and do scream.

Thanks BRWombat for the support. That is exactly what I mean. If there is an "out" IE: leaving the theater, church, etc, then that is what a responsible parent should do. Unfortunately, too many parents do NOT. Obviously, at a theme park, kids will be kids, I have no problem with that except that you hear parents yelling at their kids saying "I've spent alot of money to bring you here, so you WILL have a good time." :shock:

Oh, and since you know your kid that well, maybe you shouldn't bring it on an airplane if you know it won't tolerate flying.

BRWombat · Post by **BRWombat** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:48 am

leftcoaster wrote:"I've spent alot of money to bring you here, so you WILL have a good time."

LOL. I'm just waiting to hear someone say, "This is the happiest place on Earth, so smile, dammit!" :roll:

Steve8 · Post by **Steve8** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:01 am

There is nothing more annoying than a crying baby on the slower rides, like Pirates or Small World. Since these rides are so freakin long, you can endure up to 15 minutes of it...

biscuit_meeko · Post by **biscuit_meeko** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:53 am

Steve8 wrote:There is nothing more annoying than a crying baby on the slower rides, like Pirates or Small World. Since these rides are so freakin long, you can endure up to 15 minutes of it...

on the bright side, it drowns the song out on IaSW so you can enjoy all of Mary Blair's artistry in peace... sort of.