Freedomain Radio

I listened to these podcasts again this week (listened first quite some time ago) and this time took some notes.  I learned how to write while driving with one hand.   I used the philoso-physician to find them and that was a nice tool.

I understand that we should all come to terms with any abuse we experienced as children.  But I think it might be helpful to others to see that there are some of us out here who did come to terms with that and moved forward, but without defooing with their family.

Even after listening to these to do think that basically my parents were nice and I also think my parents DID do the best they could.  Even though there was spanking in our family.

I think I had the benefit of other examples and more information as it relates to parenting and how to raise a child.  I agree very much about spanking as being very harmful.  But I also think a lot of parents are basically good people who just spank because that’s the only thing they learned.  I don’t think they are ‘bad’ people for doing what they think is right.  I was spanked, maybe only once, can’t really remember, but I do remember being scared of being spanked if I did do something wrong, so I understand it doesn't have to be any actual hitting, the fear part certainly means it’s just as bad.  After all, not many people get shot here in America for ‘disobeying,’ because most of us just do what we are told so we can avoid any bad consequences. 

But that was never something I needed to leave my parents.  For me, all I had to do was understand that spanking was not a good way to raise people and I decided before I had kids that I would not spank them.  So after I had kids, I did a lot of reading about parenting and discipline, etc. and also I was involved in a group called La Leche League (a support group for breastfeeding mothers) and I learned a lot about gentle parenting from those people.  That’s where I first heard a tape called “People are not for Hitting and Kids are People Too.”  I think I mentioned that here before.  I heard this 25 years ago. 

So anyway, I just moved forward and did not feel any reason to leave my family or anything like that.  However, I do have to wonder if my family was different somehow because both my and my husband’s parents were very hands-off.  They never interfered with our decisions and we made some totally “radical” decisions compared to the rest of our siblings, such as no spanking, homeschooling (and the more radical part of that which is known as unschooling).  I remember running into lots of other parents who were always complaining about their families and how they kept bugging them and interfering and such and we’d just be confused by that.  We’d say, well I’d just ignore them, it’s your life, live it as you see fit, etc.  But they'd say we were lucky and just didn't understand what they had to deal with.

I don’t know if any of this happened because we were very “strong” in what we knew we wanted to do and our family knew it was no use trying to change our minds or not.  But since we didn't just leave them, for me it was very enjoyable over the years to have them observe our family and start asking questions as they saw how well an alternative way of living and learning works.

So I guess one thing I’m saying is that depending on your situation, you don’t necessarily have to defoo, maybe you can simply move forward with what you know is right.  Make sure you take a good look at your individual situation and don't project mine or others' experiences onto yours.  I'd say that in the end it does depend on your parents and how they react to you as an adult.  Can they make that switch and treat you as another adult?  If they leave you alone to live your life as you wish, then you can probably get along just fine and also reap the benefits of growth and learning from you and your parents.

Also, I wanted to add that these podcasts made me think of when I used to listen to the radio talk show of Dr. Laura.  Stef’s advice is very similar to hers because she often told people who were dealing with difficult parents that it was okay to just leave them, she said “well, they threw away their parent card.”   I always liked the way she phrased that.  

Good points.

It sounds like you have more accepting and open-minded parents than I do. However, I, like you, am not seeing a great benefit to deFOOing at this point. I feel like my parents can be rational at times and are trying to do what makes me happy, but have stepped over the line in the past by trying to tell me what to do. They never abused me physically except for I think 1 spanking.

For me the pain of going through a separation from them outweighs the benefit I would receive from deFOOing. The pain would certainly be horrendous. The pain of light conversation on the phone and spending a holiday or two a year with them is minimal, if there at all. I may change my mind at some point, but, like you, I don't feel that I should deFOO, even after listening to most of Stef's podcasts on this subject.

Dtomboy:

there are some of us out here who did come to terms with that and moved forward, but without defooing with their family.

do think that basically my parents were nice and I also think my parents DID do the best they could.  Even though there was spanking in our family....

I agree very much about spanking as being very harmful.  But I also think a lot of parents are basically good people who just spank because that’s the only thing they learned.  I don’t think they are ‘bad’ people for doing what they think is right.  I was spanked, maybe only once, can’t really remember, but I do remember being scared of being spanked if I did do something wrong, so I understand it doesn't have to be any actual hitting, the fear part certainly means it’s just as bad.  After all, not many people get shot here in America for ‘disobeying,’ because most of us just do what we are told so we can avoid any bad consequences. 

But that was never something I needed to leave my parents.  For me, all I had to do was understand that spanking was not a good way to raise people and I decided before I had kids that I would not spank them....  

 

So anyway, I just moved forward and did not feel any reason to leave my family or anything like that.  However, I do have to wonder if my family was different somehow because both my and my husband’s parents were very hands-off.  They never interfered with our decisions and we made some totally “radical” decisions compared to the rest of our siblings...

So I guess one thing I’m saying is that depending on your situation, you don’t necessarily have to defoo, maybe you can simply move forward with what you know is right. ... I'd say that in the end it does depend on your parents and how they react to you as an adult.  Can they make that switch and treat you as another adult?  If they leave you alone to live your life as you wish, then you can probably get along just fine and also reap the benefits of growth and learning from you and your parents...

Just some questions that arose while reading this:

• What do the phrases "come to terms", "move forward", "growth", and "get along" mean? How do they look, in practice?
• What is the difference between "right"/"good" and "wrong"/"bad"? How do you know the difference? What helps distinguish the two, in your mind?
• In particular, how did you arrive at the conclusion that 'spanking' was 'bad', but spankers were 'good'?
  
• Also, why does thinking that something you're doing is right, equal actually being right? In other words, how do you distinguish truth from mere opinion?
  
• What is the difference between "nice" parents, and "good" parents?
• In your mind, what sort of consequences would be just and reasonable, in terms of protecting your own values (as well as not lending sanction to the other's values) in a situation where you've determined the other person to be 'bad'?
• Why do you prefer the term 'spanking' over the term 'beating'?

Just some questions that arose while reading this:

What do the phrases "come to terms", "move forward", "growth", and "get along" mean? How do they look, in practice?

"Come to terms" in my post means: understanding that spanking is not a good way to teach a child right from wrong.  "Move forward" in my post means that I only have control over my own life and I can only change my life from any given present time forward.  "Growth" in my post means what happens to a person through personal experience and continued observation of others.  "Get along" means that I can enjoy spending the time I decide to spend with family because I have the freedom to live my life as I see fit without interference from my parents.

What is the difference between "right"/"good" and "wrong"/"bad"? How do you know the difference? What helps distinguish the two, in your mind?

In my post, Right/good is not using force on others.  Wrong/bad is using force.  How do you answer these questions?

In particular, how did you arrive at the conclusion that 'spanking' was 'bad', but spankers were 'good'?

Spanking is using force, so see above.  When people do something because they believe it is the right thing to do, then I think the person is basically good.  The problem may be that they just don't have enough information and education and understanding that what they are doing is wrong.

Also, why does thinking that something you're doing is right, equal actually being right? In other words, how do you distinguish truth from mere opinion?

I don't know.  For some reason it makes sense to me that I should not hit other people.  Maybe its purely logical in that if I don't want to be hit then I shouldn't hit others.  How do you answer these questions?

What is the difference between "nice" parents, and "good" parents?

I don't know.  How do you define those two terms?  What do you think the difference is?

In your mind, what sort of consequences would be just and reasonable, in terms of protecting your own values (as well as not lending sanction to the other's values) in a situation where you've determined the other person to be 'bad'?

Consequences relate to specific actions.  So it would depend on the action. 

Why do you prefer the term 'spanking' over the term 'beating'?

I didn't say I preferred the term.  I simply used the term because that's the language used in my family.  And it also is a well known term that pertains to a specific type of violence against a child.  But for me, spanking means controlled violence meant to train a child under specific situations and specific rules and beating is not controlled.

Dtomboy:

Spanking is using force, so see above.  When people do something because they believe it is the right thing to do, then I think the person is basically good.  The problem may be that they just don't have enough information and education and understanding that what they are doing is wrong.

 For some reason it makes sense to me that I should not hit other people.  Maybe its purely logical in that if I don't want to be hit then I shouldn't hit others.  How do you answer these questions?

So the fact that you should not hit others if you do not want to be hit is self-evident to you, yet you excuse your parents on the grounds that they just didn't know? I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

"Get along" means that I can enjoy spending the time I decide to spend with family because I have the freedom to live my life as I see fit without interference from my parents."

What do you mean by interference?

When people do something because they believe it is the right thing to do, then I think the person is basically good.

So if you were to ask these people if assaulting children is the right thing to do, what would they say? What about wife beating?

For some reason it makes sense to me that I should not hit other people.  Maybe its purely logical in that if I don't want to be hit then I shouldn't hit others.

So if you think you're doing right, and actually doing wrong, how does that make it right?  Also, I would say that UPB invalidates the proposition that spanking, or rather, assaulting children is good.

I don't know.  How do you define those two terms?  What do you think the difference is?

If you don't know the answer to that, then how can you, rationally, make the judgment that bad parents can be nice?

Consequences relate to specific actions.  So it would depend on the action.

But that doesn't answer the question, if you've determined them to be bad, then you already know the action is something in which you've determined to be bad.

But for me, spanking means controlled violence meant to train a child under specific situations and specific rules and beating is not controlled.

What is controlled violence?  That sounds like an oxymoron to me. 

Charlotte:

Dtomboy:

Spanking is using force, so see above.  When people do something because they believe it is the right thing to do, then I think the person is basically good.  The problem may be that they just don't have enough information and education and understanding that what they are doing is wrong.

 For some reason it makes sense to me that I should not hit other people.  Maybe its purely logical in that if I don't want to be hit then I shouldn't hit others.  How do you answer these questions?

So the fact that you should not hit others if you do not want to be hit is self-evident to you, yet you excuse your parents on the grounds that they just didn't know? I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

Well that's the funny thing about spanking isn't it?  My parents did not think hitting others in non-parental situations was the right thing to do.  Yet they were  raised to believe that spanking (or just the threat of spanking) was what you needed to do to 'discipline' a child.  Again, I think they did not have the benefit of learning of alternatives and observing that those alternatives worked.  It appears to me that there is a fear among parents who spank that if they don't, then they will raise some wild child.  There have been a lot more 'experiments' done since then that people can observe and my family was one of them.   How do you think it all got so messed up Charlotte?

Nathan, interference means having one's parents try to change how you choose to do something in your life.  I know many families with parents who say awful things and do things to try to stop their kids from doing what they want as adults.  Does that help you to understand?

I can only answer in my family but they would say that assaulting a child is not the right thing to do and that wife beating is not either.  Of course they have separated spanking from assault because that's how they were raised.  It's really hard for us to understand that, isn't it? 

I never said that if someone thinks they are doing something right, but actually doing wrong, makes it right.  I do think it makes it excusable in the sense that they did not know of alternatives that would accomplish the goal they wanted.  They knew no other way and I don't believe in judging people who are more ignorant than me.

Controlled violence does sound like an oxymoron doesn't it!?  But it's very common.  We use the death penalty where we have 'government' kill someone as consequence for their action, yet you or I cannot just go out and kill someone who has harmed us.  You have to follow the 'rules.'  In some schools, they still have paddling, where the principal makes quite a controlled show out of it and you may have earned 3 paddles on the butt.  Very specific and very controlled. And many parents who spank set up similar controls.  How do you think it all got so messed up Nathan?

Dtomboy:

I can only answer in my family but they would say that assaulting a child is not the right thing to do and that wife beating is not either.  Of course they have separated spanking from assault because that's how they were raised.  It's really hard for us to understand that, isn't it? 

The government calls theft "taxation" precisely because they know exactly what it is.  We avoid calling things by their real names precisely because we know exactly what they are.  

I do think it makes it excusable in the sense that they did not know of alternatives that would accomplish the goal they wanted.  They knew no other way and I don't believe in judging people who are more ignorant than me.

Did they know that violence does not solve problems in any other area of their lives?  Did they use violence to find jobs, to negotiate salaries, to negotiate when buying a car, to get women or men to like them? 

Controlled violence does sound like an oxymoron doesn't it!?

 

But it's very common.  We use the death penalty where we have 'government' kill someone as consequence for their action, yet you or I cannot just go out and kill someone who has harmed us.  You have to follow the 'rules.'  In some schools, they still have paddling, where the principal makes quite a controlled show out of it and you may have earned 3 paddles on the butt.  Very specific and very controlled. And many parents who spank set up similar controls.  How do you think it all got so messed up Nathan?

How does making a show out of violence make it "controlled"?  Where is the child in control of what happens to him? Where is the victim in control of the violence?  I would say it's the complete absence of control.

Nathan:

Did they know that violence does not solve problems in any other area of their lives?  Did they use violence to find jobs, to negotiate salaries, to negotiate when buying a car, to get women or men to like them? 

***With the society they were involved in, with the personal experiences and life observations they had, no one used violence to find jobs, negotiate salaries, buy a car, or get men and women.  The society however, did use violence, aka spanking to 'discipline' a child.

Dtomboy: Controlled violence does sound like an oxymoron doesn't it!?
Nathan: How is it not an oxymoron? !?

***I guess this was already answered after you read the rest of my post that you quoted below. 

 

Dtomboy: But it's very common.  We use the death penalty where we have 'government' kill someone as consequence for their action, yet you or I cannot just go out and kill someone who has harmed us.  You have to follow the 'rules.'  In some schools, they still have paddling, where the principal makes quite a controlled show out of it and you may have earned 3 paddles on the butt.  Very specific and very controlled. And many parents who spank set up similar controls.  How do you think it all got so messed up Nathan?

Nathan: How does making a show out of violence make it "controlled"?  Where is the child in control of what happens to him? Where is the victim in control of the violence?  I would say it's the complete absence of control.

***Hmm, I'm not sure I know how to help you to understand better.  According to societal 'rules' (strange I know) the school principal for example certainly could not take his fist and hit the kid in the nose.  According to the 'rules,' he has to use a paddle on the behind.  What is it that makes it hard for you to understand how that means some controls are placed on the violence?  Also, there has been no talk on my part about the victim controlling the violence.  I've been talking about the one doing the violent action when I talk about controlled violence.

Nathan:

OK so you believe that morality is relative to time, place and society.

Where did you get that idea?  My posts with you were answering your questions about the spanking issue.  Did I say it was 'right' or 'moral?'  I have also explained that I had the opportunity to learn more about other alternatives and then I pursued those alternatives.  It's about education as opposed to ignorance.  If someone is ignorant of alternatives, do you think they are acting immorally?

Dtomboy:

Nathan:

OK so you believe that morality is relative to time, place and society.

Where did you get that idea?  My posts with you were answering your questions about the spanking issue.  Did I say it was 'right' or 'moral?'  I have also explained that I had the opportunity to learn more about other alternatives and then I pursued those alternatives.  It's about education as opposed to ignorance.  If someone is ignorant of alternatives, do you think they are acting immorally?

I don't think a spanking parent is ignorant of alternatives, though. As Nathan pointed out above, very few people use violence to get what they want at work. None of us have threatened a belt beating during all of the threads I've read on this board, however much we disagree. If spanking were genuinely thought to be a good practice, why would reason ever be used on kids? Why not just hit them whenever there's a gap in understanding? I'm not asking these questions to be facetious, but just pointing out that no parent who hits their kid is ignorant of alternatives. They know full well that hitting is wrong when in public. They won't allow their children to "discipline" one another with spankings. I'm sure you can think of what all the other "rules" are around spanking that help make it an acceptable practice in the minds of some people. But each and every one of these rules about when to hit and when not to defines an alternative to abuse.

To be truly ignorant of alternatives would require the creation of a life-boat scenario. A 60-year-old murderer who is honestly ignorant of the concept "murder is wrong," is in a strange predicament. Firstly, he has somehow come this far in life without encountering one of the most basic ethical ideas common to all of humanity, that the initiation of the use of force is wrong, and that the initiation of the use of deadly force is even more wrong. Even if he is somehow able to prove that he's never even heard those ideas, there is still a problem. He went 60 years without murdering anybody, and then suddenly did. If it were something he was arbitrarily ignorant of, he would surely have tried it before 60.

A spanking parent who is ignorant of the use of force being wrong is in the same dilemma. Somehow they have to explain why they went so far in life without hitting anybody, and then began hitting kids. Then they have to explain why they stopped hitting kids as they grew older. They'd also have to explain why they don't let kids hit one another, why they don't generally hit other peoples' kids, why they wouldn't allow other people to hit their kids, and why they don't hit random people they wish to correct out in the city, and any number of other things.

If you're saying that they don't know how to apply principles consistently (i.e. they are victims of a society that forces most people to abandon logic) then there is no way to know what they're thinking at all, and therefore no real reason to hang out with them, since you can't ever know what they're thinking, or even if their thoughts are their own or the thoughts of "society."

Edit – To sum up a point I tried to make but I think possibly lost in my ramble: I'm not sure I'm clear about what you're saying, even after accepting your premises.

I was born into a society where professing obedience to god is the norm, and obedience to the state is  compulsory at the point of a gun, yet I reject these ideas. I've been able to somehow overcome the influence of my society. I'd say this was done through my use of reason and evidence, and an examination of my emotional blockers tying me to societal norms. I was able, you were able, everybody on this board was able, to one extent or another, to examine and reject the ideas forced on us by society (and our parents).

If your parents simply missed the train on this one, and were brainwashed by society (and their parents), then they have no ability to think for themselves on this issue, and probably others. Either that's a silly notion, and they can think for themselves, or it's true and they're robots. If they're robots, then time is surely better spent away from them, and around real living, breathing, curious, rational people. If they can think for themselves, then they simply chose not to on the child-hitting issue. If they exist somewhere between robot and curious rationality, then going to them to help clear their emotional blocks will help bring them toward the rational end of the spectrum, and make them more happy and productive people in general.

And endcap question: Do you think curiosity and rationality are preferable to simply following societal norms? If my question doesn't make sense, please let me know how/why.

 Jason, you make some good points.  A few thoughts...

You say you and others of us on this board 'somehow' have been able to overcome the influence of society and that you did it through reason and evidence.  I agree, but I think there is more to it than that.  There is also the fact that we had certain opportunities to do so, i.e. likely more education.  The opportunity to learn more about the facets of philosophy, hearing alternative views and thoughts, discussing them in depth, etc.  So in relation to parenting and spanking, it would take some education on alternatives for someone to move past that.  And if someone did not have the advantages I did, I do not feel right in making certain judgements about them.

And there's also the simple factor of available time.  If you notice many people here are students who have the time to sit around and think about this stuff.  And for those here who are not currently students, then they are highly interested in the topic, to the point that it could be considered a hobby, for people who like to hang out here.  Not everyone cares to do that, they simply have other things they prefer to do.  And just that in itself can keep people from really discovering basic truths because they are simply not sitting around thinking about it. Or they just don't have the time because they're trying to survive.  I'd assume that most of us here are living pretty well-off lives.  And that time factor can make a difference.  Which means that it's good that young people are here now thinking about it all before they have kids of course.

Also there is the support factor involved.  We know how important support can be, even for rational truth-seekers.  If support were not important then many facets of FDR itself would not even exist.  And its very similar when it comes to parenting, spanking and alternatives.  It's really helpful to have people who have been there and have had experience with alternatives.  Lots of people who spank simply do not know anyone doing it any differently and are not even aware of alternatives.  It's not simply a matter of not spanking, it's a matter of what does one do instead.  When it comes to parenting, we have only one chance to 'get it right.' And the fears involved in that thought can make parenting quite unique.

I may be wrong but I get the idea that there are not many people here who are on the 'back side' of parenting.  Which means the views come from the theoretical rather than also from personal experience.  Or rather, that the personal experience is one-sided, from that of the child and not also from the experience of being a parent.  Even if you are the best, most fair and rational human being there could be, you will make mistakes in raising your children.  They will be able to find something you did 'wrong.' 

I don't know, but I guess it's that knowledge that makes me not worry about the past and enjoy the relationship I have with my parents now as an adult, especially since they have been wonderful about not getting in the way of my choices as a parent, even if they differ drastically in how they did it.

I don't know what would have happened if they had worked hard to change my mind about my ideas or tried to sabotage or interfere.  I'm just glad that didn't happen.