Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Lemme guess, no kids of your own, or they are kept drugged to lessen their annoying qualities they inherited from dear old dad.
No?
Oh, I get it. You were trying to be funny. How cute. It's an irony thing, like how extreme egomania has take you so far you thought you'd offer this cautionary tale. Well done.
You seriously can't see that this is a satirical critique of how over-indulged and entitled kids are today? Seriously...? Or is your disdain of Mr. W that deep that you are totally blinded?
My son asked me why I have so many rules and I told him that it's my job to make sure he doesn't grow up to be an egomaniacal jerk.
Exactly! Like the kind of person who thinks it's okay to drink whiskey all day and push around his wife and kids. Because it would be very easy to grow up to become that type of an adult if he were overindulged as a child!
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Yeah TQL, the disdain runs pretty deep. I gave it an honest shot, really did, and was ridiculed for the effort nonetheless. So no. There's very little slack in the rope he's hung himself by.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
And while I'm at it, when's the last time you saw a spoiled kid who's parents were abusive drunks.
Much more likely that abusive parents were abused themselves. It's what they know, it's all they know. I submit few if any such abusers were the product of a particularly nurturing childhood.
I submit few if any such abusers were the product of a particularly nurturing childhood.
And I submit, dear sir, that if you think that giving your children everything they want and raising them to believe they don't have to be responsible for their actions is "nurturing," then I am burdened with a feeling of sadness, both for you and any of your unfortunate offspring.
Perhaps you should look into the latest research into bullying behaviour. Experts have found that, contrary to popular belief, bullies aren't always children who are abused themselves, and they are not children who suffer from low self esteem. What has been discovered is many children who bully do so because they've been raised to have a sense of entitlement, and will resort to violence rather quickly as a means of getting their way.
Children who are particularly successful with their bullying efforts grow up to become adults who will bully and manipulate as a means of getting - if it's been successful, after all, who change now? Hence the hypothetical example I gave of the no-good, lousy drunk who abuses his wife/girlfriend and children.
And no, I'm not putting up any links for you. Not because there aren't any, but rather, because you need to do your own research, Mr. Smartypants.
Mark Adams said "when's the last time you saw a spoiled kid who's parents were abusive drunks."
Actually, I see that a lot. I'm a "stay-at-home"-mom with four kids, which means that actually I'm the perpetual-volunteer-on-the-go for children's programs and activities. I see tons of kids!
The kids I see that are really spoiled generally have parents motivated by guilt. Sometimes because the drunk parent tries to make up for it, or because the sober parent is trying to compensate for the other parent's neglect. Sometimes the parents are drug-addicts or workahalics, too.
I actually did think the post was funny, but kinda sad too. I personally see too many situations where the kids rule the household with an iron-fist. Reality is going to be a rude-shock for them when their parents die! (You'll notice I didn't say "when they grow up" because I'm starting to see families where the parents are still indulging their 30 year old child, like THAT'S functional!?!)
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Dude, I'm not the one making the counterintuitive argument. You don't want to back up your crap, then it's the same old crap. You're the one citing "experts." My opinion is mine based on my own experience. You rest yours on some mysterious authority. Prove it.
On a practical note, I found a great solution for when the grandparents try "alternative parenting" crap. I told one of the grandmother's "Well. Thats your choice. I'm free to make the choice to teach them that Grandmother is ... special ... for behaving that way." No more problems out of her.
Not that I would ever actually suggest to my children that their grandmother is an idiot. Rather that sometimes people make questionable choices, like how we love Uncle John but we don't love his smoking.
I think teaching children how to evaluate behaviors is an important part of parenting. Perhaps I should even be grateful to those people that provide my children with "learning moments"!
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
And a very credible authority, no doubt.
At least I cite mine. Long time readers here know how many kids I've raised and my experience helping other parents with theirs.
Mr. W's fountain of knowledge still remains an enigma. Can't cite the "experts" he claims back up his statements. Won't cite them out of spite or inability to find any. Won't simply admit he's talking out of his ass either, so who knows.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Number 6 worked fine DPU. It was number 3 where he uses the plural that needed tweaked. It's great stuff.
Clearly number 4 is what he's relying on to avoid taking responsibility for his own opinion or offering up the authorities upon which he is basing that opinion.
Rule #4: There is no authority figure higher than Mr. Wonderful, so teach him/her to have no respect for adults. How dare a teacher, policeman, co-parent or even friendly Uncle Jerry suggest Mr. Wonderful might be misbehaving? (They must not be aware of Rule #1.) Don’t they realize that when it comes to authority, Mr. Wonderful(ren) need only answer to themselves. To help in this matter, make sure Mr. Wonderful is well versed in all swear words and encourage him/her to use them frequently to adults.
And furthermore, a simple Google search of "spoiling kids bullies" yielded this, amongst many other similar treatises on the subject. But I'll paste here for your perusal.
Are We Spoiling Our Children Too Much?
By Louise Geaney
Guilt is the Number One factor to blame for this situation says American clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft. The author of the book Spoiling Childhood: How Well-Meaning Parents Are Giving Children Too Much-But Not What They Need says parents today are often caught up in a guilt-driven pendulum, swinging between parenting too little and parenting too much. According to Ehrensaft we are giving too much freedom, material goods, and empty praise to our children in place of setting limits and giving guidance, time and love.
“We parent like Tarzan on a rope, wildly swinging from never being there enough to being there far too much,” Ehrensaft says, of modern parents who are caught in the juggling act of trying to have ‘it all’. Today’s parents are, she says, caught in the predicament of wanting to pursue their own needs and ambitions while at the same time wanting to give their children more opportunities and materialistic items than they themselves had. “It is a predicament for these professional, middle-class parents who have gone after what they have wanted - career, money, happiness - sometimes at the expense of their children's well being, and yet who also act as if the sky is the limit for their children,” she says the families that frequent the psychologist’s practice sound familiar.
Parents that work hard, yet help out with homework and organise after school activities for their kids’ five days a week. In these families children rarely help around the house and their demands are met with the least amount of resistance. Sounds like a scene from many homes- but where does the boundary between wanting to encourage our children’s growth and rearing potentially unsociable bullies begin to blur?
The word 'discipline' may cause some parents to break out in a rash, but according to psychologists it’s a necessary part of the parenting process. Parents in 2005 may want their children to be free spirited and more spontaneous than previous generations, but this doesn’t mean they don’t need their parents to act like, well, parents. Without firm parameters, authorities say children are forced to scream and whine, desperately looking for the reference point from which to grow and develop.
“Worrying about our children not liking us if we discipline them can prevent some parents from establishing firm structures for behaviour that our children need. We must stop abdicating the throne and accept our position as an adult," Ehrensaft says. "Children do not do well with deposed kings and queens for parents. To be good parents, we definitely must give generously of ourselves, but never give ourselves over to our children," she states.
Irish psychologist and founder of Rollercoaster.ie, Dr Anne O’Connor agrees. “Discipline is a very important part of parenting and is one which is usually learnt on the job. If your child learns that when you say no you mean it, you are teaching them a valuable lesson for life,” she says. The Galway-based psychologist says many parents give into their kids’ demands because it's so much easier to give in and buy whatever it is they want than to spend time explaining why they won't buy it or deal with sulks when they don't get it. However, such actions will have negative repercussions.
“You’re creating a child who will have totally unrealistic expectations of you and the world - they will expect to get everything they want. You can be sure that their requests will get bigger and more expensive as they become aware of all the goodies out there. While you may indulge your child's wishes, the world just isn't like that and your child may be in for a rude awakening when they encounter the many situations where they actually can't have what they want,” Dr O’Connor says. The psychologist says that what children really want is to spend time with their parents, rather than being ‘bought off’ with gifts.
“'Things' just cannot replace your time. If children do not get the attention and input from you, among other things, they do not develop a sense of their worth. They may feel they are not worth spending time with. So even though you might be showering your little one with gifts their self esteem might be shrinking as their stack of toys grow,” she declares. While parents should start saying ‘no’ to demands and tantrums, Dr O’Connor says they should reply a clear ‘yes’ to children’s’ request for their time.
“Make the time. Parenting isn't about just getting through these years - you should be enjoying your child and what better way than to spend time with them. Discover what they like, allow them time to show off their new skills and knowledge, give them praise and encouragement,” she adds. According to Ehrensafts the key to change lies in taking a look at the family dynamics and examining the way we treat our children. Children she says, are not miniature adults, and mustn’t be expected to grow up before their time. She insists that children need time to play and have free time to be with family and friends, in other words, enjoying childhood, while at the same time, relaxing in the knowledge that the grown-ups are running the show.
“Once you make the change you’ll not only have fewer battles with your children but you’ll also have more opportunities to truly enjoy being with them, and that’s what is most important,” Ehrensafts declares.
Louise Geaney is a freelance journalist based in Ireland, where she also runs the parenting podcast on her website http://www.go-mums.com
...and, here is an article on the importance of setting boundaries in kids. Which, I think is the crux of what Mr. W was getting at in his piece. That kids today have few boundaries and structure and are often over-induldged, which is just as abusive and negligent as the more traditional forms of abuse and neglect we are more accustomed to seeing.
Agreed, but I'm curious. I find the strongest-held child-rearing advice tends to come from those with the least experience, and I was wondering if that was the case here.
...took the words right out of my mouth! THANK YOU!!
++
You may have a point, but that advice comes from people without kids who have to deal with folks whose bad-ass children with no damn home training act a damn fool in public, or as guests in my house! ...sorry, my southern roots are showing. In those cases, I place the blame on parents for not raising their children appropriately.
If you must know, I have a 16-year-old daughter who, when she's with me, is allowed to enjoy life and her time spent with her father, but not without limits. Ironically, the worst time with her is usually the first two weeks she gets here ... it can be difficult for her to make the adjustment between her mother's home - where she hears way too much adult conversation and thinks she can talk and act like an adult - to my home, where she is not allowed so many freedoms that are beyond her age and ability to comprehend.
That's not to say that the poor girl is thrown in a rat-infested dungeon and fed hard-tack and gruel, of course; but I'm sure you will interpret it as such.
That's not to say that the poor girl is thrown in a rat-infested dungeon and fed hard-tack and gruel, of course; but I'm sure you will interpret it as such.
I think you would find to everyone's benefit if you would stop making lame-ass projections about what other people are thinking about you. You're very bad at it, and it gives you a weepy martyr appearance.
"...and, here is an article on the importance of setting boundaries in kids. Which, I think is the crux of what Mr. W was getting at in his piece. That kids today have few boundaries and structure..."
The trouble here is that there are two arguments; one supportable (though not very well supported) and another dubious one that's not supported at all.
The fact that kids need boundaries - explained not spanked to them - is well established. It's called "Authoritative Parenting" and it is known to generally produce the best adjusted people. On each side of that you have the "Liberal" style of parenting (hate that characterization) in which few or no boundaries are set and you do indeed often end up with irresponsible, self-indulgent adults and the "Authoritarian" style of parenting which often employs corporal punishment to enforce "because I said so" type rules. That's typically the style of parenting which produces bullies (children do as they see) and often, in adult life, Republicans.
By the time you get to the "kids today..." stuff, you need to show the data. I'm sure it was first said as soon as adults had language and children.
That's typically the style of parenting which produces bullies (children do as they see) and often, in adult life, Republicans.
Well, I find there are bully-type personalities in all political ideologies. If there is a personality trait that is common in Republicans, I'd say that it has to be an inability to work with anything but extremes, and be frustrated with things that are in an intermediary position.
For example, Mr. W. explains his parenting situation somewhat (one that I'm sympathetic with, actually), but then details what he thinks will be my mental response. Predictably, it's an extreme one, and as he's verbalized it, it's obvious that he really wants to shoehorn me into that mental position.
This was something that a blogger from another blog used to do frequently, and that makes me pretty frigging uncomfortable.
I find it hard to believe that children with no boundaries or taught consequences are just going to turn into self-indulgent adults. And those that are spanked become bullies.
That's a rather sweeping generalization. I have personally seen a few children that have parents who think their little darling is perfection and needs no correction - those little dears are all asshole bullies. Every. Single. One.
For example, Mr. W. explains his parenting situation somewhat (one that I'm sympathetic with, actually), but then details what he thinks will be my mental response. Predictably, it's an extreme one, and as he's verbalized it, it's obvious that he really wants to shoehorn me into that mental position.
The difference was that Mr. W didn't mean it in any serious manner - it was an off the cuff sarcastic comment like I'd make or Shep would make. The other blogger would be composing a post waxing poetic about being so vilified, call you a some kind of Canuck and then ban you before you could respond. ;-)
The difference was that Mr. W didn't mean it in any serious manner...
And what indicates that?
The other blogger would be composing a post waxing poetic about being so vilified, call you a some kind of Canuck and then ban you before you could respond.
True, but it smells similar enough to raise some hairs.
Well, good for you that you have chosen not to spank your children or use some form of corporal punishment against your children. But, some people do, and most know how to do it in moderation without it escalating to all-out abuse.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Usually all I have to do is sternly remind the kids that I'm bigger, meaner and uglier than they are. They chuckle in agreement and then do as I ask.
BTW, asking works better than "telling," as with all people, young or old. Giving a reason, when possible (which is most of the time) works wonders for the kids future behavior. All corrections can and should be learning experiences. Having a sound rationale they can understand helps them internalize the lesson.
Throwing dishware is likewise a motivational tactic that reinforces the behavior correction, as long as your aim is good. My mom had lousy aim which only spurred me to respond to the projectile coffee cups, "missed me bitch."
But like my kids, I was bigger, meaner and uglier than mom too.
My mom had lousy aim which only spurred me to respond to the projectile coffee cups, "missed me bitch."
Hmm, and if you would dare to call your mother a bitch, you probably did deserve an ass whoopin'. And, if you didn't get one, that would explain a lot...
But, some people do, and most know how to do it in moderation without it escalating to all-out abuse.
As I said, I don't understand why it's necessary at all.
My own childhood, both in family and school, involved a lot of physical violence as a disincentive toward certain behavior. I found that all it did was ensure that when authority figures were not around, that behavior was well exercised. And once kids are big enough to not be hit anymore, having relied for years upon threat of violence to guide their behavior many then lack their own moral compass, and sometimes go off the rails.
I have four kids, from ages ten to twenty-one, and there wasn't a single instance of a situation where smackery was justified. That isn't to say there weren't several circumstances where smackery occurred, but each was a case of me losing my temper, and all involved sincere apologies to the child involved.
You have your experiences, and I have mine. Which I guess is what makes the issue of corporal punishment very subjective.
I got spankings from time to time...okay, fairly often. And, sometimes my mom did go a little crazy with it. But, what it did do is establish a clear line of authority - who was the parent/adult and who was the child. And as result I had and still have extreme respect for elders, and that is something that I hope to instill in my children when I have them. Now, that is not to say that was the ONLY way those lines were established, but they were clear, and they were rigid. To quote Bill Cosby, "I brought you in this world, and I can take you out..." was not a threat that I wanted to test.
I think you would find to everyone's benefit if you would stop making lame-ass projections about what other people are thinking about you. You're very bad at it, and it gives you a weepy martyr appearance.
Weepy martyr? Projection? Me? Ninja, please!
If you couldn't see the humor in my statement - I mean, my Gods! Dungeon. Hard-tack. Gruel - than you're more obtuse than I had initially imagined.
"Well, I find there are bully-type personalities in all political ideologies."
I said as children, they tend to be the bullies. They learn to use physical intimidation to get their way, just as their parents do. As adults, that's much harder to get away with. Anyway the authoritarianism is what really tends to stay with them as authoritarians or authoritarian followers.
"I find it hard to believe that children with no boundaries or taught consequences are just going to turn into self-indulgent adults. And those that are spanked become bullies.
That's a rather sweeping generalization. I have personally seen a few children that have parents who think their little darling is perfection and needs no correction - those little dears are all asshole bullies."
I believe that I used term generally more than once (isn't the whole post a "rather sweeping generalization," or doesn't that count?). And, again, you can't confuse childrens' responses with adult behavior. Of course over-indulged kids can become demanding little tyrants. As adults, they're most likely to model one or both parents, whatever their personalities.
That applies to corporal punishment as well. And, not only will it influence a child due to modeling, it also fails to teach them to use reason and compassion to sympathize and persuade people without coercion, possibly passive-aggressive, but coercion none-the-less.
No kids here, so uninformed by actual experience, here's what I wonder:
Perhaps setting real clear boundaries early on and being very consistent with the kids obviates the need for spanking.
Or perhaps genetically you could end up with a kid who's perhaps too aggressive in pushing boundaries and needs a bit of a smackdown from time to time.
Also, I've met some monsters out in the world who could use a spanking, but that was because they'd no doubt already gotten away with extreme levels of misbehavior.
That applies to corporal punishment as well. And, not only will it influence a child due to modeling, it also fails to teach them to use reason and compassion to sympathize and persuade people without coercion, possibly passive-aggressive, but coercion none-the-less.
Depending on how it is used. I got spanked - not often because it hurt, I didn't like it and so I straightened the fuck up! But I never just got an ass whuppin. I always got a talk, a lesson and the iron hand or reinforcement when I was too much of a smartass to stop while I was ahead on the lesson.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Oh, mom did indeed respond when I said, "missed me bitch," after she threw the coffee cup at my head. The pot came next. But I've got pretty good reflexes.
"I always got a talk, a lesson and the iron hand or reinforcement when I was too much of a smartass to stop while I was ahead on the lesson."
I was spanked from time to time as a child. As DPU suggests, especially as I got older, I learned that my parents had lost control - to me.
I worked with a dog trainer once (with my dog, I mean) who, other than my "special case" (still talkin' about the dog) only did performance dog training. Those are those amazing dogs that go through a timed obstacle course. He said most trainers had given up negative reinforcement altogether - they only rewarded good behavior and never punished the bad - because the negative reinforcement made the dogs more reticent before some obstacles and the positive-only reinforced dogs started winning all the competitions because they seemed to enjoy tackling the obstacles better.
and has vastly improved in her choice of royal companions.
I hate to agree with the troll crew here, but much more likely she's making a typical "rebound" mistake. What was that -- five months single for her? Yeah, she's completely ready for a new relationship ... I think I'll just call you Mr. Rebound.
I'm sorry Mark, but no, you will not be able to wear the monkey suit. Althought sparse, we do plan to have some African-American guests at the wedding, and they would surely find such a suit offensive. And I wouldn't want to be responsible for you losing a spot in Barry's campaign. Imagine the guilt I would feel!
While I'm sure Mr. Wonderful appreciates all the "advice", I must say that the psychoanalysis from you armchair MDs is a bit...out of line.
Some of you have an inkling as to the state of my marital breakdown, none of you know the exact hows, whys and real time events. I'm going to say this once and then never again.
The legal/official/public ending of my marriage and the actual true death of my marriage have significantly different dates. I don't know how many of you left bad marriages in the past and it is none of my business. I know that mine shouldn't have been anyone's business but that cat was let out of the bag against my wishes by a LYING, STINKING DRUNK needing a pity party.
If you really knew me, then you'd know that I'm fairly annoyed at making this statement. That I shouldn't have to defend my personal actions because you'd know exactly what my marriage was, who I was really married to and you'd be HAPPY that I finally found someone that truly loves, honors, respects and above all else treats me as an equal and not a possession.
You wouldn't be over here suggesting that I'm less than I am. Using some cookie cutter measure for how my life should be based on things you read or experienced yourself...YMMV as they say.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
How about a chicken suit?
To tell the truth, none of us really know W enough to make a judgment on his and Rose's relationship -- and that of course is part of the problem. He spouts fairly outrageous stuff, deliberately looking for a fight, acts like he knows us but it's obviously at best second-hand info, and yet feels secure enough in his knowledge to mock us on a personal level -- then feigns victimhood when the predictable push-back happens.
Who knows? And that's the problem. There's an intimacy in the attacks and counter-attacks here where the advantage in knowing the adversary is all his and the resentment of his presumptive behavior natural. Adding insult to the injury is his consistent belligerence even when approached in an adult fashion -- as surely will be born out by his reaction to this comment where he will insinuate he is either incapable of reform or display his contempt and indifference.
In real life he may be god's gift. Respectful, charming and witty. It doesn't come across in this media, at least not the way he uses it.
For example, Ed Schultz, the left's version of Rush Limbaugh was at the White House Corespondent's Dinner and was surprised to find out that Bush is actually pretty funny with a good sense of stand-up timing. We'd never know that in the sound-byte driven, Q&A type format we see him in. His attempts at jokes come off stale and inept. It just isn't his venue.
Maybe blogging isn't Mr. W's venue, at least not yet. If he's not willing to learn anyway. This post at least didn't single an individual or minority out for particularly undeserved insult. Just set up a an unsubstantiated strawman -- until he gave into some pressure to offer proof that his claim there were experts who agreed with him was presented.
So there's room here for improvement, learning. He just cries out for a spanking sometimes though.
While I'm doing that, for whatever D's faults, he wrote eight words on his blog six months ago. I think given the circumstances, it was a perfectly understandable thing to do. Yes, it broke a promise, but it was an understandable lapse, and he's taken real action to prevent that from happening again. Ignoring his changes, you've paid him back about ten thousand fold at this point, and keep pointing to how he was, not what he's becoming. The man had a disease. You may not understand that ... but that's the case.
And it's not about your "being less than you are." It's about behavior. Think about it. Public adultery. Talking about penis size. Rants against your ex- that you delete and then pat yourself on the back for deleting. Calling him SPoDe and a host of other names. At one point, there was an entire host of his failings listed online. Now Mr. Rebound is joining in the badmouthing.
And all that time, D hasn't responded in kind online. In fact, he called for it to stop when folks from his blog came over here. I'm actually starting to respect the man -- not for what he did, because of what he's becoming. He's actually getting better.
Listen to Shep this time. Have fun, but don't be stupid.
And it's not about your "being less than you are." It's about behavior. Think about it. Public adultery. Talking about penis size.
Excuse me? Public adultery? Not even close. Marriage over - living apart. Adultery not possible. Oh and I've been talking about penis size since I knew what one was...
Rants against your ex- that you delete and then pat yourself on the back for deleting. Calling him SPoDe and a host of other names. At one point, there was an entire host of his failings listed online. Now Mr. Rebound is joining in the badmouthing.
There was never an entire list of his failings. NEVER. We call his blog SPoDE because we prefer not to mention it by name.
I have every right to say whatever I want against my ex and if you think he hasn't used his blog as a weapon against me then honey, you aren't paying attention. Or do you think that Glenn Sacks is there by accident? Mr. Wonderful is painfully aware of the actual situation and perhaps he takes exception to being compared to my EX.
And all that time, D hasn't responded in kind online. In fact, he called for it to stop when folks from his blog came over here. I'm actually starting to respect the man -- not for what he did, because of what he's becoming. He's actually getting better.
False, he was forced to stop his attacks by my ATTORNEY. You can think whatever you want but I still have to deal with him personally and if you think this person is changed then you are fooling yourself.
Some of this is out of line. I don't know all of the details about Rose's divorce like the rest of y'all do, but I know plenty about my own. I know that nothing helps you never get over the last person until the next one. (Or in my case the sixth)
We don't know what kind of relationship she has with Mr. W, but I know that some of you aren't helping the situation at all. Why can't you be happy that she's with someone that has made her feel "good" for a little while. She obviously felt like shit for long enough.
I didn't marry the first girl that I went out with after I got divorced, but I'll never forget her. She did more for me than anyone in my life other than my Mother and my current wife. She made me feel like I was worth something to someone again. If Wonderful makes Rose feel that way, that's fine with me...whether I like him or not.
Also...this was the FIRST blog that he's started that actually made me laugh.
I grew up in the South and have only been out of school for ten years. I got my ass beat at home and at school. They still used the old paddle at my middle school in small rural Georgia when I was in the eighth grade.
I grew up with a drunk, abusive step-father, which my mother just left three months ago, and I'm fine. Anyone who uses the "I was abused, so this is why I do it" excuse gets absolutely no freaking sympathy from me. If I can live through my life and be how I am, I expect that everyone else should be able to as well.
As Tim can verify, my wife and I don't even argue. Of course, that's because when an argument starts, I just let her win.
It's okay to spoil your kids, but there has to be some sort of discipline involved. Spanking are okay, but if there is a closed fist involved...that's a whole new ballgame.
We are getting way off topic! First, I am a police officer in a major metropolitan area and the kids that Mr. Wonderful is describing are exactly the hooligans, hell raisers, and gangsters that I deal with! This type of liberal "experimental" child raising has caused a whole generation of lost, disrespectful, and criminal kids that are out of control! They are hyper-violent and this all stems from bad parenting and the lack of corporal punishment discipline.
There was never an entire list of his failings. NEVER.
Oh, I should have known better on that one. LOL. "Oh no baby, that was NOT the ENTIRE list." Could've been said by any woman about any man at any time.
People who refuse to take responsibility for their actions, blame their past, blame their parents or blame their disease are exactly the kind of people that grow up without having to face consequences when they were children.
I'm not saying all but I am saying many.
Good parenting requires love, correction and teaching responsibility. If you can do that without spankings great but everyone is different. There is no one size fits all in raising children.
Fine, no chicken suit. But don't expect me to wear socks.
Chicken suit and no socks is fine, but considering the diverse crowd our wedding is sure to attract, I must ask you to refrain from any attire resembling a monkey or a water buffalo.
"Good parenting requires love, correction and teaching responsibility. If you can do that without spankings great but everyone is different. There is no one size fits all in raising children."
I think you just said there is. But I see that for you it's all about the spankings. Why not just leave the kids out of it, they can learn about it when they're all grown up.
We know that Rose likes to stir things up a bit to get conversation going. We know that Mr. W obviously likes to do the same. Yet when we get stirred up, we're out of line?
Good parenting requires love, correction and teaching responsibility. If you can do that without spankings great but everyone is different. There is no one size fits all in raising children.
If you can do it without whipping them with barbed wire or hitting them with a bamboo switch and rubbing salt into the welts, that's great too. But everyone's different.
I notice that so far, the extent of the defense of spanking is "everyone's different". That seems a bit weak to me.
Out of line when you attack on a personal level. Not out of line when you attack or debate the issues. This thread is about raising children not who I was married to and who I am involved with now.
If you can do it without whipping them with barbed wire or hitting them with a bamboo switch and rubbing salt into the welts, that's great too. But everyone's different
What you described is ABUSE not a spanking. Hopefully, you know the difference. And, I think most people who spank their children also know the difference b/t the two as well.
While I'm doing that, for whatever D's faults, he wrote eight words on his blog six months ago. I think given the circumstances, it was a perfectly understandable thing to do.
Eight words were just the beginning. He has written a lot more. Like the stand up guy he is, he prefers the veiled attacks, rather than the direct hits. So guys like you can come over here and say he has only written eight words.
It's good that Dean has friends the likes of you and Kevin D. He needs that. But the bridges and valley's his actions have scorched make it impossible for us to try to cross and see how much he's changed.
We're too busy repairing the damage left in his wake. It's not as cut and dried as 12 steps either.
The man had a disease. You may not understand that ... but that's the case.
A disease implies that it can be cured. If thats the case, why was it not cured until AFTER the marriage began the dissolution process?
I hate to agree with the troll crew here, but much more likely she's making a typical "rebound" mistake. What was that -- five months single for her? Yeah, she's completely ready for a new relationship ... I think I'll just call you Mr. Rebound.
I'll chalk this one up to naivety. Moving out of the family home is not the line of demarcation for determining when one is "single". Only Rose knows for sure when that date is. But if I had to wager a guess, it's greater than 5 months.
As for Mr. Rebound?? That's a dumb fucking thing to say. My sister is hot, I'm pretty sure she rebounded quite nicely in December. Not that I need to know the details as it would shoot the brother Eww meter off the charts. Besides that, its not any of my business.
Dubya is definitely not a rebound. He's got some staying power. (+5 on the Eww meter for the double entendre)
What you described is ABUSE not a spanking. Hopefully, you know the difference.
I had my back opened up with the buckled end of a belt by a teacher in class. I was thrashed by a school principle with a bamboo switch. I had my head swung against a wall by my mother. I was stripped of my clothes and thrown out of the house into the street by my parents.
All of these were done as consequences for behavior in a system that recognized all of this as legitimate punishment, not abuse, so you'll forgive me if I find the line a little vague at times.
I'd suggest that if you don't want opinions from your commenters about your relationship with Mr. W, then you and he keep the issue off the blog. You and he have been presenting it in a pretty out front manner in exactly the same liberal baiting tone that you use for other issues.
As far as I'm concerned, when you yourself do that, it's fair game. If you don't think so, then I'm afraid I'm bowing out of here because I'm not about to start tiptoeing around it. And Mr. W was fine with me when I thought his persona was an act. If it isn't, not so much.
Out of line when you attack on a personal level.
Then Mr. W. might want to follow the rules as well.
I'm sorry that you experienced that type of abuse by teachers and your parents. It is inexcuseable. And of course, your experience colors your position on this issue.
All that I, and I think others, are trying to point out is that it is unfair to make the assumption and accusation that all parents who choose to spank their children or use some form of physical punishment are abusive.
"...it is unfair to make the assumption and accusation that all parents who choose to spank their children or use some form of physical punishment are abusive."
Well, that's the point isn't it? For some people any sort of physical violence - or even the threat thereof - is the very definition of "abuse". In any event, it's completely unnecessary to discipline children.
All that I, and I think others, are trying to point out is that it is unfair to make the assumption and accusation that all parents who choose to spank their children or use some form of physical punishment are abusive.
I haven't made that assumption, nor that accusation. You have made it yourself. Please don't attribute it to me. I will, however, go so far to say that I think that spanking is the lazy solution to discipline.
I have seen here no defense of spanking, other than "everyone's different", that could not also be valid with no hitting.
For some people any sort of physical violence - or even the threat thereof - is the very definition of "abuse". In any event, it's completely unnecessary to discipline children.
All the more reason to follow my six Wonderful rules for parenting, don't you think?
that aside...it really reads to me like you guyz are just a wee bit jealous of Mr. Wunnerful?
Uh, no. Mr. Wonderful, as near as I can tell, is being purposefully provocative, and intentionally pissing people off. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's traditional here.
So is it any wonder (sorry) that people get pissed off at him?
Where does jealousy enter into it? I think your girlsense may be broken.
Do you know Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus?
Like that, sometimes.
That really doesn't offer much to the discussion. M. No rationale as to why, no discussion that supports your position, nothing much beyond a gratuitous Shakespeare reference.
I found the honeymoon suite. It is absolutely ideal. You and Rose will love it.
And the rates are fantastic. For two in the western style open-air hot spring bath, the tariff is only 36,900 yen per person per night. Consider than 100 yen equals just a bit over one dollar US, you should find this a bargain, well excluding air fare to Nagoya.
Just go to Mukaya and check out all those beautiful links.
If you hurry on the plans, you can meet my son, who has decided he has a new girlfriend and he's going visit her in May in Nagoya then go to Mukaya.
I must remember to ask him when he became wealthy and just where on eHarmony dot com he met her ?
Mukaya looks lovely, very zen. My taste runs more towards spicy food and weird places, but I know spa fans who would like it.
About spanking - I only spanked my son once, when he scared me by running into a busy street. I had to find a very quick way to tell him not to do that anymore. Otherwise, a combination of reinforcing good behavior and (verbally) criticizing bad behavior seemed to be enough for both kids. I usually didn't spank because Catholic school taught me that hitting kids makes them contemptuous of authority.
On the other hand, I remember a kid, about 10 yrs old, who was screaming at his mom in a mall, calling her a bitch, and her only response was to ask him why he was so angry. That was the first time during the trip she paid attention to him.
I stopped babysitting a friend's son because he deliberately ate berries off a tree when I told him they were poisonous. Both parents of these out-of-control kids didn't spank, but they also didn't reinforce good behavior. They only paid attention to the kids when they were bad.
Only paying attention to kids when they're bad, whether you spank or not, seems to encourage the worst behavior.
Both parents of these out-of-control kids didn't spank, but they also didn't reinforce good behavior. They only paid attention to the kids when they were bad.
Feel free to e-mail my "Six Rules for Modern Parenting" to both these children's parents. I'm sure it would be of great assistance.
Feel free to e-mail my "Six Rules for Modern Parenting" to both these children's parents
Well, my point is that the parents who ignore good behavior, or the parents who basically ignore their kids in general are the ones who have the most problems. Kids need attention, and if the only way they can get it is by being bad, they'll be bad. Getting yelled at or being spanked is better than being totally ignored.
You're criticizing indulgent parents. Kids who were raised by indulgent parents tend to be a little bratty, but they usually wind up in good shape (see Sofia Copolla or Christopher Buckley).
Kids who were raised by indulgent parents tend to be a little bratty, but they usually wind up in good shape ...
Oh really? Well, I know of a few indulged children I'd love for you to meet. You'd think they were great, right up until the time they'd tell you to "Go f*ck yourself" while their mother sits on her couch, smoking a cigarette, pretending she "didn't hear" them say it.
Well, I know indulged children that are well behaved and polite.
Then by all means, indulge your children, double. Buy them ice cream every time their feelings get hurt, let them play X-Box 360 until 3am while you do their homework, ad infitum, ad nauseum. If you're convinced that spoiling your kids will create the next Sofia Coppola, that's your business. Just don't get angry if the rest of the world has a different opinion regarding your precious little angel.
And by the way, the term "bunk" is so 90s. Get with the times, okay?
Just don't get angry if the rest of the world has a different opinion regarding your precious little angel.
Actually, who said anything about my kids? Projecting much? I said that I knew of situations that are in opposition to your own experiences.
Should I write slower? Larger? Anything to help with your limited reading comprehension.
By the way, feel free to whip the kids in your own life. You seem like the type to shove around those smaller than yourself and then justify it in a self-righteous manner as good parenting.
You're thinking like a flatlander that never travelled over a hundred miles. Plenty of flatlanders have your profound ?irrefutable mono-think-like-me-experience. But not all go on the internet to blabber it out.
Travel challenges those assumptions. In some countries like Japan, many, many, many children are profoundly over-indulged year after year, but each year the cultural ingredient of mysteriously responsibility leeches into the pliable minds of most youth and by the time they are adults they are quite responsible. That isn't something I've read and you don't have to believe.
Well, I don't agree with his ideas about what creates problem children (or problem adults)
Most Asian cultures do indulge their kids, but they also make it clear that they expect kids to live up to certain expectations. When you combine lots of love, attention and expectations, kids tend to behave reasonably well without the need for spanking. That's just what I've observed.
But even if kids are very occasionally spanked (by parents with recognized authority), if they get enough attention for what they do right, they also tend to be ok.
Seriously, why not try actually saying stuff instead of wrapping it in references to relatively obscure plays? It makes it look like you're more interested in informing others that you've read the play than communicating anything else.
No?
Oh, I get it. You were trying to be funny. How cute. It's an irony thing, like how extreme egomania has take you so far you thought you'd offer this cautionary tale. Well done.
You seriously can't see that this is a satirical critique of how over-indulged and entitled kids are today? Seriously...? Or is your disdain of Mr. W that deep that you are totally blinded?
Wow...
My son asked me why I have so many rules and I told him that it's my job to make sure he doesn't grow up to be an egomaniacal jerk.
That's easy to pick out. The problem is that it isn't funny. Poorly behaved children from apathetic parents is about as banal a subject as there is.
Exactly! Like the kind of person who thinks it's okay to drink whiskey all day and push around his wife and kids. Because it would be very easy to grow up to become that type of an adult if he were overindulged as a child!
Much more likely that abusive parents were abused themselves. It's what they know, it's all they know. I submit few if any such abusers were the product of a particularly nurturing childhood.
So, again. No.
Not funny, not even ironic. Simply stupid.
And I submit, dear sir, that if you think that giving your children everything they want and raising them to believe they don't have to be responsible for their actions is "nurturing," then I am burdened with a feeling of sadness, both for you and any of your unfortunate offspring.
Perhaps you should look into the latest research into bullying behaviour. Experts have found that, contrary to popular belief, bullies aren't always children who are abused themselves, and they are not children who suffer from low self esteem. What has been discovered is many children who bully do so because they've been raised to have a sense of entitlement, and will resort to violence rather quickly as a means of getting their way.
Children who are particularly successful with their bullying efforts grow up to become adults who will bully and manipulate as a means of getting - if it's been successful, after all, who change now? Hence the hypothetical example I gave of the no-good, lousy drunk who abuses his wife/girlfriend and children.
And no, I'm not putting up any links for you. Not because there aren't any, but rather, because you need to do your own research, Mr. Smartypants.
Actually, I see that a lot. I'm a "stay-at-home"-mom with four kids, which means that actually I'm the perpetual-volunteer-on-the-go for children's programs and activities. I see tons of kids!
The kids I see that are really spoiled generally have parents motivated by guilt. Sometimes because the drunk parent tries to make up for it, or because the sober parent is trying to compensate for the other parent's neglect. Sometimes the parents are drug-addicts or workahalics, too.
I actually did think the post was funny, but kinda sad too. I personally see too many situations where the kids rule the household with an iron-fist. Reality is going to be a rude-shock for them when their parents die! (You'll notice I didn't say "when they grow up" because I'm starting to see families where the parents are still indulging their 30 year old child, like THAT'S functional!?!)
Then again again, maybe relying on spanking your kids is what leads to having kids that set fire to things.
Well, number six doesn't work so well, but the rest is pure gold.
And a very credible authority, no doubt.
Not that I would ever actually suggest to my children that their grandmother is an idiot. Rather that sometimes people make questionable choices, like how we love Uncle John but we don't love his smoking.
I think teaching children how to evaluate behaviors is an important part of parenting. Perhaps I should even be grateful to those people that provide my children with "learning moments"!
At least I cite mine. Long time readers here know how many kids I've raised and my experience helping other parents with theirs.
Mr. W's fountain of knowledge still remains an enigma. Can't cite the "experts" he claims back up his statements. Won't cite them out of spite or inability to find any. Won't simply admit he's talking out of his ass either, so who knows.
Clearly number 4 is what he's relying on to avoid taking responsibility for his own opinion or offering up the authorities upon which he is basing that opinion.
So, you're citing yourself as the parenting expert? Must be an easy link then, eh?
Are We Spoiling Our Children Too Much?
By Louise Geaney
Guilt is the Number One factor to blame for this situation says American clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft. The author of the book Spoiling Childhood: How Well-Meaning Parents Are Giving Children Too Much-But Not What They Need says parents today are often caught up in a guilt-driven pendulum, swinging between parenting too little and parenting too much. According to Ehrensaft we are giving too much freedom, material goods, and empty praise to our children in place of setting limits and giving guidance, time and love.
“We parent like Tarzan on a rope, wildly swinging from never being there enough to being there far too much,” Ehrensaft says, of modern parents who are caught in the juggling act of trying to have ‘it all’. Today’s parents are, she says, caught in the predicament of wanting to pursue their own needs and ambitions while at the same time wanting to give their children more opportunities and materialistic items than they themselves had. “It is a predicament for these professional, middle-class parents who have gone after what they have wanted - career, money, happiness - sometimes at the expense of their children's well being, and yet who also act as if the sky is the limit for their children,” she says the families that frequent the psychologist’s practice sound familiar.
Parents that work hard, yet help out with homework and organise after school activities for their kids’ five days a week. In these families children rarely help around the house and their demands are met with the least amount of resistance. Sounds like a scene from many homes- but where does the boundary between wanting to encourage our children’s growth and rearing potentially unsociable bullies begin to blur?
The word 'discipline' may cause some parents to break out in a rash, but according to psychologists it’s a necessary part of the parenting process. Parents in 2005 may want their children to be free spirited and more spontaneous than previous generations, but this doesn’t mean they don’t need their parents to act like, well, parents. Without firm parameters, authorities say children are forced to scream and whine, desperately looking for the reference point from which to grow and develop.
“Worrying about our children not liking us if we discipline them can prevent some parents from establishing firm structures for behaviour that our children need. We must stop abdicating the throne and accept our position as an adult," Ehrensaft says. "Children do not do well with deposed kings and queens for parents. To be good parents, we definitely must give generously of ourselves, but never give ourselves over to our children," she states.
Irish psychologist and founder of Rollercoaster.ie, Dr Anne O’Connor agrees. “Discipline is a very important part of parenting and is one which is usually learnt on the job. If your child learns that when you say no you mean it, you are teaching them a valuable lesson for life,” she says. The Galway-based psychologist says many parents give into their kids’ demands because it's so much easier to give in and buy whatever it is they want than to spend time explaining why they won't buy it or deal with sulks when they don't get it. However, such actions will have negative repercussions.
“You’re creating a child who will have totally unrealistic expectations of you and the world - they will expect to get everything they want. You can be sure that their requests will get bigger and more expensive as they become aware of all the goodies out there. While you may indulge your child's wishes, the world just isn't like that and your child may be in for a rude awakening when they encounter the many situations where they actually can't have what they want,” Dr O’Connor says. The psychologist says that what children really want is to spend time with their parents, rather than being ‘bought off’ with gifts.
“'Things' just cannot replace your time. If children do not get the attention and input from you, among other things, they do not develop a sense of their worth. They may feel they are not worth spending time with. So even though you might be showering your little one with gifts their self esteem might be shrinking as their stack of toys grow,” she declares. While parents should start saying ‘no’ to demands and tantrums, Dr O’Connor says they should reply a clear ‘yes’ to children’s’ request for their time.
“Make the time. Parenting isn't about just getting through these years - you should be enjoying your child and what better way than to spend time with them. Discover what they like, allow them time to show off their new skills and knowledge, give them praise and encouragement,” she adds. According to Ehrensafts the key to change lies in taking a look at the family dynamics and examining the way we treat our children. Children she says, are not miniature adults, and mustn’t be expected to grow up before their time. She insists that children need time to play and have free time to be with family and friends, in other words, enjoying childhood, while at the same time, relaxing in the knowledge that the grown-ups are running the show.
“Once you make the change you’ll not only have fewer battles with your children but you’ll also have more opportunities to truly enjoy being with them, and that’s what is most important,” Ehrensafts declares.
Louise Geaney is a freelance journalist based in Ireland, where she also runs the parenting podcast on her website http://www.go-mums.com
...took the words right out of my mouth! THANK YOU!!
++
You may have a point, but that advice comes from people without kids who have to deal with folks whose bad-ass children with no damn home training act a damn fool in public, or as guests in my house! ...sorry, my southern roots are showing. In those cases, I place the blame on parents for not raising their children appropriately.
That's not to say that the poor girl is thrown in a rat-infested dungeon and fed hard-tack and gruel, of course; but I'm sure you will interpret it as such.
I think you would find to everyone's benefit if you would stop making lame-ass projections about what other people are thinking about you. You're very bad at it, and it gives you a weepy martyr appearance.
The trouble here is that there are two arguments; one supportable (though not very well supported) and another dubious one that's not supported at all.
The fact that kids need boundaries - explained not spanked to them - is well established. It's called "Authoritative Parenting" and it is known to generally produce the best adjusted people. On each side of that you have the "Liberal" style of parenting (hate that characterization) in which few or no boundaries are set and you do indeed often end up with irresponsible, self-indulgent adults and the "Authoritarian" style of parenting which often employs corporal punishment to enforce "because I said so" type rules. That's typically the style of parenting which produces bullies (children do as they see) and often, in adult life, Republicans.
By the time you get to the "kids today..." stuff, you need to show the data. I'm sure it was first said as soon as adults had language and children.
Well, I find there are bully-type personalities in all political ideologies. If there is a personality trait that is common in Republicans, I'd say that it has to be an inability to work with anything but extremes, and be frustrated with things that are in an intermediary position.
For example, Mr. W. explains his parenting situation somewhat (one that I'm sympathetic with, actually), but then details what he thinks will be my mental response. Predictably, it's an extreme one, and as he's verbalized it, it's obvious that he really wants to shoehorn me into that mental position.
This was something that a blogger from another blog used to do frequently, and that makes me pretty frigging uncomfortable.
That's a rather sweeping generalization. I have personally seen a few children that have parents who think their little darling is perfection and needs no correction - those little dears are all asshole bullies. Every. Single. One.
Consequences and boundaries are possible without physical punishment, are they not?
The difference was that Mr. W didn't mean it in any serious manner - it was an off the cuff sarcastic comment like I'd make or Shep would make. The other blogger would be composing a post waxing poetic about being so vilified, call you a some kind of Canuck and then ban you before you could respond. ;-)
Data? Seriously? IT'S A FUCKING BLOG NOT A THESIS!!! Next y'all will be wanting APA style citations...
Certainly but sometimes an old fashioned ass whuppin' is called for... Or even a hand slap or what have you.
And what indicates that?
The other blogger would be composing a post waxing poetic about being so vilified, call you a some kind of Canuck and then ban you before you could respond.
True, but it smells similar enough to raise some hairs.
Why? I haven't yet run into a situation with my four kids that called for that.
AMEN!
...that's something I RARELY hear White folks say... must be the Polish thing?
Well, good for you that you have chosen not to spank your children or use some form of corporal punishment against your children. But, some people do, and most know how to do it in moderation without it escalating to all-out abuse.
BTW, asking works better than "telling," as with all people, young or old. Giving a reason, when possible (which is most of the time) works wonders for the kids future behavior. All corrections can and should be learning experiences. Having a sound rationale they can understand helps them internalize the lesson.
Throwing dishware is likewise a motivational tactic that reinforces the behavior correction, as long as your aim is good. My mom had lousy aim which only spurred me to respond to the projectile coffee cups, "missed me bitch."
But like my kids, I was bigger, meaner and uglier than mom too.
Hmm, and if you would dare to call your mother a bitch, you probably did deserve an ass whoopin'. And, if you didn't get one, that would explain a lot...
As I said, I don't understand why it's necessary at all.
My own childhood, both in family and school, involved a lot of physical violence as a disincentive toward certain behavior. I found that all it did was ensure that when authority figures were not around, that behavior was well exercised. And once kids are big enough to not be hit anymore, having relied for years upon threat of violence to guide their behavior many then lack their own moral compass, and sometimes go off the rails.
I have four kids, from ages ten to twenty-one, and there wasn't a single instance of a situation where smackery was justified. That isn't to say there weren't several circumstances where smackery occurred, but each was a case of me losing my temper, and all involved sincere apologies to the child involved.
I'd say that a dish-throwing parent deserves to be called names.
You have your experiences, and I have mine. Which I guess is what makes the issue of corporal punishment very subjective.
I got spankings from time to time...okay, fairly often. And, sometimes my mom did go a little crazy with it. But, what it did do is establish a clear line of authority - who was the parent/adult and who was the child. And as result I had and still have extreme respect for elders, and that is something that I hope to instill in my children when I have them. Now, that is not to say that was the ONLY way those lines were established, but they were clear, and they were rigid. To quote Bill Cosby, "I brought you in this world, and I can take you out..." was not a threat that I wanted to test.
Weepy martyr? Projection? Me? Ninja, please!
If you couldn't see the humor in my statement - I mean, my Gods! Dungeon. Hard-tack. Gruel - than you're more obtuse than I had initially imagined.
I said as children, they tend to be the bullies. They learn to use physical intimidation to get their way, just as their parents do. As adults, that's much harder to get away with. Anyway the authoritarianism is what really tends to stay with them as authoritarians or authoritarian followers.
Or you're far less funny than you imagine.
As you say, it's not the only way. But why prefer that way to less violent methods?
That's a rather sweeping generalization. I have personally seen a few children that have parents who think their little darling is perfection and needs no correction - those little dears are all asshole bullies."
I believe that I used term generally more than once (isn't the whole post a "rather sweeping generalization," or doesn't that count?). And, again, you can't confuse childrens' responses with adult behavior. Of course over-indulged kids can become demanding little tyrants. As adults, they're most likely to model one or both parents, whatever their personalities.
That applies to corporal punishment as well. And, not only will it influence a child due to modeling, it also fails to teach them to use reason and compassion to sympathize and persuade people without coercion, possibly passive-aggressive, but coercion none-the-less.
You can believe whatever you choose.
OK, let's stick with the (unsupported) sweeping generalizations then. As long as I know the rules.
Perhaps setting real clear boundaries early on and being very consistent with the kids obviates the need for spanking.
Or perhaps genetically you could end up with a kid who's perhaps too aggressive in pushing boundaries and needs a bit of a smackdown from time to time.
Also, I've met some monsters out in the world who could use a spanking, but that was because they'd no doubt already gotten away with extreme levels of misbehavior.
My two cents.
Depending on how it is used. I got spanked - not often because it hurt, I didn't like it and so I straightened the fuck up! But I never just got an ass whuppin. I always got a talk, a lesson and the iron hand or reinforcement when I was too much of a smartass to stop while I was ahead on the lesson.
I called my mom a bad name once...
ONCE.
I was spanked from time to time as a child. As DPU suggests, especially as I got older, I learned that my parents had lost control - to me.
I worked with a dog trainer once (with my dog, I mean) who, other than my "special case" (still talkin' about the dog) only did performance dog training. Those are those amazing dogs that go through a timed obstacle course. He said most trainers had given up negative reinforcement altogether - they only rewarded good behavior and never punished the bad - because the negative reinforcement made the dogs more reticent before some obstacles and the positive-only reinforced dogs started winning all the competitions because they seemed to enjoy tackling the obstacles better.
Seems like a good metaphor to me.
Whatever you were hit for, it obviously wasn't about your lamentable taste in men.
Jesus, did I say that out loud? Sorry.
But why dwell on the past, double? My Queen has remedied that problem and has vastly improved in her choice of royal companions.
Uh huh.
From what I've heard, it could be "vastly improved" and still be lamentable. From what I've read, I'm pretty sure of the latter.
Waddaya know, maybe he does have a sense of humor.
I hate to agree with the troll crew here, but much more likely she's making a typical "rebound" mistake. What was that -- five months single for her? Yeah, she's completely ready for a new relationship ... I think I'll just call you Mr. Rebound.
[Not the tux, that's for special occasions. I mean a real monkey suit, with tail and everything.]
I'm sorry Mark, but no, you will not be able to wear the monkey suit. Althought sparse, we do plan to have some African-American guests at the wedding, and they would surely find such a suit offensive. And I wouldn't want to be responsible for you losing a spot in Barry's campaign. Imagine the guilt I would feel!
Some of you have an inkling as to the state of my marital breakdown, none of you know the exact hows, whys and real time events. I'm going to say this once and then never again.
The legal/official/public ending of my marriage and the actual true death of my marriage have significantly different dates. I don't know how many of you left bad marriages in the past and it is none of my business. I know that mine shouldn't have been anyone's business but that cat was let out of the bag against my wishes by a LYING, STINKING DRUNK needing a pity party.
If you really knew me, then you'd know that I'm fairly annoyed at making this statement. That I shouldn't have to defend my personal actions because you'd know exactly what my marriage was, who I was really married to and you'd be HAPPY that I finally found someone that truly loves, honors, respects and above all else treats me as an equal and not a possession.
You wouldn't be over here suggesting that I'm less than I am. Using some cookie cutter measure for how my life should be based on things you read or experienced yourself...YMMV as they say.
The advice isn't for Mr. W. No one gives a rat's ass about him.
Want a little more: have your fun but don't be stupid. And remember the definition of insanity.
To tell the truth, none of us really know W enough to make a judgment on his and Rose's relationship -- and that of course is part of the problem. He spouts fairly outrageous stuff, deliberately looking for a fight, acts like he knows us but it's obviously at best second-hand info, and yet feels secure enough in his knowledge to mock us on a personal level -- then feigns victimhood when the predictable push-back happens.
Who knows? And that's the problem. There's an intimacy in the attacks and counter-attacks here where the advantage in knowing the adversary is all his and the resentment of his presumptive behavior natural. Adding insult to the injury is his consistent belligerence even when approached in an adult fashion -- as surely will be born out by his reaction to this comment where he will insinuate he is either incapable of reform or display his contempt and indifference.
In real life he may be god's gift. Respectful, charming and witty. It doesn't come across in this media, at least not the way he uses it.
For example, Ed Schultz, the left's version of Rush Limbaugh was at the White House Corespondent's Dinner and was surprised to find out that Bush is actually pretty funny with a good sense of stand-up timing. We'd never know that in the sound-byte driven, Q&A type format we see him in. His attempts at jokes come off stale and inept. It just isn't his venue.
Maybe blogging isn't Mr. W's venue, at least not yet. If he's not willing to learn anyway. This post at least didn't single an individual or minority out for particularly undeserved insult. Just set up a an unsubstantiated strawman -- until he gave into some pressure to offer proof that his claim there were experts who agreed with him was presented.
So there's room here for improvement, learning. He just cries out for a spanking sometimes though.
While I'm doing that, for whatever D's faults, he wrote eight words on his blog six months ago. I think given the circumstances, it was a perfectly understandable thing to do. Yes, it broke a promise, but it was an understandable lapse, and he's taken real action to prevent that from happening again. Ignoring his changes, you've paid him back about ten thousand fold at this point, and keep pointing to how he was, not what he's becoming. The man had a disease. You may not understand that ... but that's the case.
And it's not about your "being less than you are." It's about behavior. Think about it. Public adultery. Talking about penis size. Rants against your ex- that you delete and then pat yourself on the back for deleting. Calling him SPoDe and a host of other names. At one point, there was an entire host of his failings listed online. Now Mr. Rebound is joining in the badmouthing.
And all that time, D hasn't responded in kind online. In fact, he called for it to stop when folks from his blog came over here. I'm actually starting to respect the man -- not for what he did, because of what he's becoming. He's actually getting better.
Listen to Shep this time. Have fun, but don't be stupid.
And I thought my Queen and I were sappy. Why don't you and SPoDE get a room? Sheesh!
Excuse me? Public adultery? Not even close. Marriage over - living apart. Adultery not possible. Oh and I've been talking about penis size since I knew what one was...
Rants against your ex- that you delete and then pat yourself on the back for deleting. Calling him SPoDe and a host of other names. At one point, there was an entire host of his failings listed online. Now Mr. Rebound is joining in the badmouthing.
There was never an entire list of his failings. NEVER. We call his blog SPoDE because we prefer not to mention it by name.
I have every right to say whatever I want against my ex and if you think he hasn't used his blog as a weapon against me then honey, you aren't paying attention. Or do you think that Glenn Sacks is there by accident? Mr. Wonderful is painfully aware of the actual situation and perhaps he takes exception to being compared to my EX.
And all that time, D hasn't responded in kind online. In fact, he called for it to stop when folks from his blog came over here. I'm actually starting to respect the man -- not for what he did, because of what he's becoming. He's actually getting better.
False, he was forced to stop his attacks by my ATTORNEY. You can think whatever you want but I still have to deal with him personally and if you think this person is changed then you are fooling yourself.
We don't know what kind of relationship she has with Mr. W, but I know that some of you aren't helping the situation at all. Why can't you be happy that she's with someone that has made her feel "good" for a little while. She obviously felt like shit for long enough.
I didn't marry the first girl that I went out with after I got divorced, but I'll never forget her. She did more for me than anyone in my life other than my Mother and my current wife. She made me feel like I was worth something to someone again. If Wonderful makes Rose feel that way, that's fine with me...whether I like him or not.
I grew up in the South and have only been out of school for ten years. I got my ass beat at home and at school. They still used the old paddle at my middle school in small rural Georgia when I was in the eighth grade.
I grew up with a drunk, abusive step-father, which my mother just left three months ago, and I'm fine. Anyone who uses the "I was abused, so this is why I do it" excuse gets absolutely no freaking sympathy from me. If I can live through my life and be how I am, I expect that everyone else should be able to as well.
As Tim can verify, my wife and I don't even argue. Of course, that's because when an argument starts, I just let her win.
It's okay to spoil your kids, but there has to be some sort of discipline involved. Spanking are okay, but if there is a closed fist involved...that's a whole new ballgame.
Mr. Wonderful keep it up the good work my man!
Oh, I should have known better on that one. LOL. "Oh no baby, that was NOT the ENTIRE list." Could've been said by any woman about any man at any time.
I'm not saying all but I am saying many.
Good parenting requires love, correction and teaching responsibility. If you can do that without spankings great but everyone is different. There is no one size fits all in raising children.
Chicken suit and no socks is fine, but considering the diverse crowd our wedding is sure to attract, I must ask you to refrain from any attire resembling a monkey or a water buffalo.
I'm just saying ...
I think you just said there is. But I see that for you it's all about the spankings. Why not just leave the kids out of it, they can learn about it when they're all grown up.
We know that Rose likes to stir things up a bit to get conversation going. We know that Mr. W obviously likes to do the same. Yet when we get stirred up, we're out of line?
Did I get that right, Rose?
If you can do it without whipping them with barbed wire or hitting them with a bamboo switch and rubbing salt into the welts, that's great too. But everyone's different.
I notice that so far, the extent of the defense of spanking is "everyone's different". That seems a bit weak to me.
Did I get that right, Rose?
Out of line when you attack on a personal level. Not out of line when you attack or debate the issues. This thread is about raising children not who I was married to and who I am involved with now.
What you described is ABUSE not a spanking. Hopefully, you know the difference. And, I think most people who spank their children also know the difference b/t the two as well.
Eight words were just the beginning. He has written a lot more. Like the stand up guy he is, he prefers the veiled attacks, rather than the direct hits. So guys like you can come over here and say he has only written eight words.
It's good that Dean has friends the likes of you and Kevin D. He needs that. But the bridges and valley's his actions have scorched make it impossible for us to try to cross and see how much he's changed.
We're too busy repairing the damage left in his wake. It's not as cut and dried as 12 steps either.
A disease implies that it can be cured. If thats the case, why was it not cured until AFTER the marriage began the dissolution process?
I'll chalk this one up to naivety. Moving out of the family home is not the line of demarcation for determining when one is "single". Only Rose knows for sure when that date is. But if I had to wager a guess, it's greater than 5 months.
As for Mr. Rebound?? That's a dumb fucking thing to say. My sister is hot, I'm pretty sure she rebounded quite nicely in December. Not that I need to know the details as it would shoot the brother Eww meter off the charts. Besides that, its not any of my business.
Dubya is definitely not a rebound. He's got some staying power. (+5 on the Eww meter for the double entendre)
I had my back opened up with the buckled end of a belt by a teacher in class. I was thrashed by a school principle with a bamboo switch. I had my head swung against a wall by my mother. I was stripped of my clothes and thrown out of the house into the street by my parents.
All of these were done as consequences for behavior in a system that recognized all of this as legitimate punishment, not abuse, so you'll forgive me if I find the line a little vague at times.
As far as I'm concerned, when you yourself do that, it's fair game. If you don't think so, then I'm afraid I'm bowing out of here because I'm not about to start tiptoeing around it. And Mr. W was fine with me when I thought his persona was an act. If it isn't, not so much.
Out of line when you attack on a personal level.
Then Mr. W. might want to follow the rules as well.
I'm sorry that you experienced that type of abuse by teachers and your parents. It is inexcuseable. And of course, your experience colors your position on this issue.
All that I, and I think others, are trying to point out is that it is unfair to make the assumption and accusation that all parents who choose to spank their children or use some form of physical punishment are abusive.
Well, that's the point isn't it? For some people any sort of physical violence - or even the threat thereof - is the very definition of "abuse". In any event, it's completely unnecessary to discipline children.
I haven't made that assumption, nor that accusation. You have made it yourself. Please don't attribute it to me. I will, however, go so far to say that I think that spanking is the lazy solution to discipline.
I have seen here no defense of spanking, other than "everyone's different", that could not also be valid with no hitting.
All the more reason to follow my six Wonderful rules for parenting, don't you think?
I'll let you know if I ever decide to read them.
That's it! Rose ... I demand you ban Shep for not reading my blog!
Boo-hoo!
Rose has been very, very civilized.
She is an outstanding mother is why.
I would like to be less civilized.
Do you know Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus?
Like that, sometimes.
;)
that aside...it really reads to me like you guyz are just a wee bit jealous of Mr. Wunnerful?
my grrlsense is tingling.
;)
Uh, no. Mr. Wonderful, as near as I can tell, is being purposefully provocative, and intentionally pissing people off. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's traditional here.
So is it any wonder (sorry) that people get pissed off at him?
Where does jealousy enter into it? I think your girlsense may be broken.
Do you know Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus?
Like that, sometimes.
That really doesn't offer much to the discussion. M. No rationale as to why, no discussion that supports your position, nothing much beyond a gratuitous Shakespeare reference.
I found the honeymoon suite. It is absolutely ideal. You and Rose will love it.
And the rates are fantastic. For two in the western style open-air hot spring bath, the tariff is only 36,900 yen per person per night. Consider than 100 yen equals just a bit over one dollar US, you should find this a bargain, well excluding air fare to Nagoya.
Just go to Mukaya and check out all those beautiful links.
If you hurry on the plans, you can meet my son, who has decided he has a new girlfriend and he's going visit her in May in Nagoya then go to Mukaya.
I must remember to ask him when he became wealthy and just where on eHarmony dot com he met her ?
About spanking - I only spanked my son once, when he scared me by running into a busy street. I had to find a very quick way to tell him not to do that anymore. Otherwise, a combination of reinforcing good behavior and (verbally) criticizing bad behavior seemed to be enough for both kids. I usually didn't spank because Catholic school taught me that hitting kids makes them contemptuous of authority.
On the other hand, I remember a kid, about 10 yrs old, who was screaming at his mom in a mall, calling her a bitch, and her only response was to ask him why he was so angry. That was the first time during the trip she paid attention to him.
I stopped babysitting a friend's son because he deliberately ate berries off a tree when I told him they were poisonous. Both parents of these out-of-control kids didn't spank, but they also didn't reinforce good behavior. They only paid attention to the kids when they were bad.
Only paying attention to kids when they're bad, whether you spank or not, seems to encourage the worst behavior.
Feel free to e-mail my "Six Rules for Modern Parenting" to both these children's parents. I'm sure it would be of great assistance.
Well, my point is that the parents who ignore good behavior, or the parents who basically ignore their kids in general are the ones who have the most problems. Kids need attention, and if the only way they can get it is by being bad, they'll be bad. Getting yelled at or being spanked is better than being totally ignored.
You're criticizing indulgent parents. Kids who were raised by indulgent parents tend to be a little bratty, but they usually wind up in good shape (see Sofia Copolla or Christopher Buckley).
Oh really? Well, I know of a few indulged children I'd love for you to meet. You'd think they were great, right up until the time they'd tell you to "Go f*ck yourself" while their mother sits on her couch, smoking a cigarette, pretending she "didn't hear" them say it.
I'm sure they'll wind up in good shape.
Hey! Bitch all you want, but that's a true story ... and the observations I made may have been an influence to this educational treatise.
I'm Mr. Wonderful and I approve this message.
Then by all means, indulge your children, double. Buy them ice cream every time their feelings get hurt, let them play X-Box 360 until 3am while you do their homework, ad infitum, ad nauseum. If you're convinced that spoiling your kids will create the next Sofia Coppola, that's your business. Just don't get angry if the rest of the world has a different opinion regarding your precious little angel.
And by the way, the term "bunk" is so 90s. Get with the times, okay?
Actually, who said anything about my kids? Projecting much? I said that I knew of situations that are in opposition to your own experiences.
Should I write slower? Larger? Anything to help with your limited reading comprehension.
By the way, feel free to whip the kids in your own life. You seem like the type to shove around those smaller than yourself and then justify it in a self-righteous manner as good parenting.
You're thinking like a flatlander that never travelled over a hundred miles. Plenty of flatlanders have your profound ?irrefutable mono-think-like-me-experience. But not all go on the internet to blabber it out.
Travel challenges those assumptions. In some countries like Japan, many, many, many children are profoundly over-indulged year after year, but each year the cultural ingredient of mysteriously responsibility leeches into the pliable minds of most youth and by the time they are adults they are quite responsible. That isn't something I've read and you don't have to believe.
But you might cut, 'Bitch', a little slack.
Well, I don't agree with his ideas about what creates problem children (or problem adults)
Most Asian cultures do indulge their kids, but they also make it clear that they expect kids to live up to certain expectations. When you combine lots of love, attention and expectations, kids tend to behave reasonably well without the need for spanking. That's just what I've observed.
But even if kids are very occasionally spanked (by parents with recognized authority), if they get enough attention for what they do right, they also tend to be ok.
Ice cream and McDonald's are for winners!!!
Now that's the spirit! LOL
Rose don't play that.
She can't, she has kids.
Titus Andronicus is propably the most gorry, bloody and dark of all the Bard's work.
And it is all about revenge.
The Oldboy trilogy is good revenge work too.
I bet everyone here got that.
Seriously, why not try actually saying stuff instead of wrapping it in references to relatively obscure plays? It makes it look like you're more interested in informing others that you've read the play than communicating anything else.
Bravo, double. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Lighten up, dude. I was just joking with you.
Then you need to cut that out. It comes across as smarmy, condescending, and obnoxious. It sure as hell isn't funny.
Double, if I've said something to offend you, please believe me.
He started out with one chip on his shoulder, now he has one on the other shoulder and several other body parts. The possibilities are endless.
Other than that, you'd think he could start his own blog with his generic in you face approach to loving kindness.