Watching these videos filled me with explosive anger.

[voodoolily]

You can defend yourself without ever restraining anyone. It would be a much simpler, safer and more matter to herd the child to another location where they can't disrupt class or endanger anyone else. 

To a padded cell, perhaps?

I used to nanny this one 3-year old who actually made me question my own ability to parent. This kid was completely gifted at identifying and pressing all buttons you have (he did this to the day care teachers too, not just me). One time he started trying to physically hurt his infant sister. His mom was there this time, so I just observed. She went through all of the "healthy parenting" motions, using a quiet, yet stern voice, trying to ask him why he was upset, threatened to not let him watch his video, threatened to have nap time early, etc. but nothing would deter him. He started trying to hit the baby, and wouldn't stop until his mom threw him onto the couch and SAT on him until he was too exhausted to keep fighting. Then she took him to his room and administered the rest of the punishments that she'd threatened (no privileges). She used physical force to restrain him, rather than to hurt him, and I totally support that. I, personally, wanted to bludgeon the little fucker, but this is why I have no children.

Edit: btw, a pillow over the face doesn't really count as a restraint, although it's often tempting. 

[Astorax]

Here's my problem with the "No negative reinforcement" philosophy. It is in total and complete opposition to the way the world works once the child leaves the protection of childhood. Total. The world is a harsh bitch. She will rip out your guts and show them to you just because she can, whether you are acting positively or negatively. When you act negatively, often she responds with almost devestating negative force.

I don't disagree with you completely, however, there is a time/age consideration for this sort of thing.

Take sexuality as a perfect example.  The world is full of sexuality.  The society here (In America) is, granted, totally fucked up...but taking that for granted:  Society here considers, say, 12/13 too young to be having sex.  I realize that in other parts of the world this is normal/natural, but bear with me here...

A child who is over exposed to sexual content/behaviour prior to a certain age (I believe developmentally it is pre-8 years of age) has an exponentially higher percentage chance of becoming sexually active at an earlier age.  Negative reinforcement through spankings has shown to increase the same violent tendencies (not necessarily criminally violent, but violent in the sense of beating on other children, cruelty or misbehaviour to animals, etc etc) in the same age range of children.  So while negative reinforcement may work in the short term, it has far reaching consequences beyond the moment.  Taking care NOT to overexpose the child to this sort of behaviour can stop the proclivity for that sort of behaviour in teenage children, when that sort of behaviour becomes more destructive.

[voodoolily]

What Astorax says rings true. My brother and I received spankings for misbehavior when we were kids, but mostly the punishment seemed overboard for whatever it was we did. We also fought a lot, using our fists, not just with each other but with neighbor kids, too. Sometimes after receiving a spanking we woud literally troll the neighborhood for some kid to wail on. We're only two years apart, so eventually this escalated into some real violence, basically until I hit puberty and became a "woman" (my dad always stressed it's not okay to hit women). I grew out of it, but my brother still has a tendency to put up fists when he's pissed off at someone, and if not for his newborn son, would probably still be getting into street brawls today. And I am still a bit scared of how he'll deal with the issue of spanking when his baby gets old enough to be defiant.

[Fargull]

Some thoughts.  If the child was exposed in utero to drugs, then generally by the age of four/five they will begin showing signs of behavior similar to the video.  Don't know from what little information we have at this point if that parallel can be drawn.  As SuperPoptart pointed out, at the very least the child's home life should have a serious harsh light of day shined on it.  The parental responsability around this case is frightening.

Haemish, I agree with alot of what you said, but I have also seen children raised where no loud voice or threat of physical intimidation was involved and those children were amazingly well behaved and grew up to be amazing young adults.  Of course, TV was not what I would say overly prevelant in those kids' worldview, but the fact you could be at a gathering of 30 or so with zero problems is just amazing.  The main facet here is our culture is slowly moving to letting non-family members do the child raising.  I hate that my son is in day care for 9 hours a day.  Only consolation I have is I got my homework done and feel good about the school / care facility he spends his week days at...

[Astorax]

Haemish, I agree with alot of what you said, but I have also seen children raised where no loud voice or threat of physical intimidation was involved and those children were amazingly well behaved and grew up to be amazing young adults.  Of course, TV was not what I would say overly prevelant in those kids' worldview, but the fact you could be at a gathering of 30 or so with zero problems is just amazing.  The main facet here is our culture is slowly moving to letting non-family members do the child raising.  I hate that my son is in day care for 9 hours a day.  Only consolation I have is I got my homework done and feel good about the school / care facility he spends his week days at...

This of course comes down to parental responsibility, like you said.  I personally am an example of a child that was raised without ever having been touched physically in disciplinary situations despite behaving rather atrociously at times (all kids do).  But even the worst of scenarios can be taken care of without physical discipline in the form of spankings or yelling as long as the parent is patient and level-headed enough to deal with the situation.  It's EASIER to haul off and spank the kid and make them fear that repurcussion.  It requires less thought, forethought, planning and...well, for lack of a better word, cunning.  Both are effective in the short term, there's no question about that.

It's the PARENT's responsibility to teach their child when something is or isn't appropriate behaviour.  Television can be horrifically destructive to this as most of what our culture deems 'entertainment' is counter-intuitive to how we OUGHT to be behaving.  Having parents reinforce a lot of this (the mother suing someone for trying to impose some discipline on their child) only makes matters worse.  I question this mother's right to be a mother at all given that they're clearly teaching their child that destructive behaviour is acceptable.

If there were a fair and decent way to determine fitness to be a parent I'd be all for enforced sterilization until such requirements were met.  Unfortunately, given that those in power are rarely equipped to make such distinctions, such a law would never be acceptable to anyone completely IMO.

[voodoolily]

Some thoughts.  If the child was exposed in utero to drugs, then generally by the age of four/five they will begin showing signs of behavior similar to the video.  

I thought that perhaps this was a crackbaby issue, but if the mother has the audacity (or clarity of thought?) to threaten litigation, it didn't seem likely. Unless the mom is adoptive, as some people do with children of drug-addicted mothers.

If there were a fair and decent way to determine fitness to be a parent I'd be all for enforced sterilization until such requirements were met.  Unfortunately, given that those in power are rarely equipped to make such distinctions, such a law would never be acceptable to anyone completely IMO.

There clearly isn't a way that doesn't border on eugenics, hence I called this (truly fantastic) idea Orwellian. Even it didn't border on eugenicist, someone will always find fault with the eligibility criteria and/or evaluation methods. 'Fair and decent' doesn't exist in this world, or else we'd all be Socialists.

[Polysorbate80]

You can defend yourself without ever restraining anyone. It would be a much simpler, safer and more matter to herd the child to another location where they can't disrupt class or endanger anyone else. 

To a padded cell, perhaps?

I used to nanny this one 3-year old who actually made me question my own ability to parent. This kid was completely gifted at identifying and pressing all buttons you have (he did this to the day care teachers too, not just me). One time he started trying to physically hurt his infant sister. His mom was there this time, so I just observed. She went through all of the "healthy parenting" motions, using a quiet, yet stern voice, trying to ask him why he was upset, threatened to not let him watch his video, threatened to have nap time early, etc. but nothing would deter him. He started trying to hit the baby, and wouldn't stop until his mom threw him onto the couch and SAT on him until he was too exhausted to keep fighting. Then she took him to his room and administered the rest of the punishments that she'd threatened (no privileges). She used physical force to restrain him, rather than to hurt him, and I totally support that. I, personally, wanted to bludgeon the little fucker, but this is why I have no children.

Edit: btw, a pillow over the face doesn't really count as a restraint, although it's often tempting. 

..and if you put a pillow over their face before you punch 'em, it doesn't leave so many telltale marks! :)  j/k  I've worked with folks with mental illness and developmental disabilities, and I have a two-year old child.  Believe you me, I'm well acquainted with the wish to be able to telepathically explode someone's head at times...

Padded cell is a bit extreme; I'm just saying moving them to a spot where they can't hurt someone else is easier, safer and all-around better than keeping them in the classroom and using physical force there to prevent others from getting hurt.  I've put people in restraint, and you wind up just as exhausted as the person you're holding.  But, sometimes ya just gots ta do it.

I understand holding the child to keep them from hitting the baby; positives outweighing the negatives there.  For the record, though...restraint by sitting on someone who's down?  Big cause of deaths like the ones I mentioned.  Absolutely not recommended as a method, folks. (I wish I could give one that is, but there's no way to properly teach it via internet message board; the legal and liability issues are prohibitive.)

[Roac]

But for most functional humans, saying "if you're good when we're in the store you can pick out a candy bar" is sufficient

Also a good way to spoil a child.  It's more like "you are expected to be good in the store; you lose your privledges and/or get punnished if not".  Otherwise, next thing you know the child feels entitled to a candy bar every time they enter a store.  Cut/paste that sense of entitlement to every other occation to which they are bribed for good behavior.  I mean, I got to work ontime this morning, and nobody gave me a cookie :(

At some point, rewards must give way to expectation, and expectations give way to punnishemnt for failure to comply.

[voodoolily]

Yes, true, however! The classic psychology also say that rewards are at maximum efficacy when they are not given every time, but just sometimes. This is why gambling is so addictive. Of course, you can't tell a kid he'll get a candy bar then not give him one, but if you do it once in awhile, you can see results. If you come to work on time today, that's what you're supposed to do, no cookie. If you always come in on time, every day, don't you kinda expect a cookie on review day? I mean, you know you could get away with a little tardiness every once and awhile, so do you do it? Or do you actually make a point of always being on time? And if you do come in on time every day, don't you kinda hope you'll get rewarded for it?

That's the reason why adulthood is a drag. No one ever says, "good job", they only tell you when you screw up. Or sometimes, they don't even tell you that, you just find out you're not up to snuff when they let you go, or pass you up for the promotion, or whatever.

The bribery thing isn't really the point I was trying to get across. Keep kids happy, duh, but not at all costs. But happy kids are usually good kids.

[Megrim]

But for most functional humans, saying "if you're good when we're in the store you can pick out a candy bar" is sufficient

Also a good way to spoil a child.  It's more like "you are expected to be good in the store; you lose your privledges and/or get punnished if not".  Otherwise, next thing you know the child feels entitled to a candy bar every time they enter a store.  Cut/paste that sense of entitlement to every other occation to which they are bribed for good behavior.  I mean, I got to work ontime this morning, and nobody gave me a cookie :(

At some point, rewards must give way to expectation, and expectations give way to punnishemnt for failure to comply.

While i normally stay well away from pseudo-political and/or social discussions on teh intarnets, i feel that i have to chime in on this occasion. Not having seen the video (dial-up ftw!) something Roac said has struck me as unusual. Forgive me if i read it out of context, but when someone says "you are expected to be good in the store; you lose your privledges and/or get punnished if not", the thing that stands out immediately in my mind is... why is the child expected to be good? Should not the child consider what we define as "being good" a normal state of existance. Because it seems to me that when the child has to be told to "be good in situation x" there is a definite problem with the parenting and the situation needs (or needed to be) addressed well before the punishment/reward stage.

 - meg

[Samwise]

"Be good" is shorthand for "don't be too rambunctious".  There are times when it's okay to run around and yell (at the park), and times when it's not (at the store).

[Megrim]

oic. Hrm, well, maybe it was just the way i was brought up - never did see the need to run around going spastic at the playground.

 - meg

[Samwise]

It's not even a question of "going spastic" - the whole point of going to the playground is to get some exercise so you don't turn into Jabba the Hutt by the age of ten from sitting on your ass all day.  Didn't you ever play tag with other kids?  Or climb on things?  These are both very healthy playground activities that are considered inappropriate in the supermarket.   

[Megrim]

Well, you see i grew up in Russia. We played tag, of a sort. With bricks. A sort-of "brick tag" if you will. And i also broke quite a few bodyparts climbing up things (and subsequently falling off).

Of course, we also did not have supermarkets, so that may rule out certain behavioural qwerks.

What i meant to say was that having seen plenty of examples here in Australia of kids in the supermarket going absolutely batshit crazy because mommy would not give them a candy bar does not really relate to physical exercise. I see plenty of kids all around on friday afternoons, running around in their football jerseys, kicking soccer balls and they all seem quite happy. But it seems odd to me, to transplant this behaviour to the supermarket. Physical activity is one thing (and something kids these days sorely need to have imposed on them), but having a child throw a tantrum because they don't get what they want seems and entirely different matter.

It seems to me that most kids actively enjoy kicking a ball (and/or whatever), whereas the issue of candy bars is mostly a thing of discipline. This then carries over to the playing of tag in the supermarket; a child needs to be made aware of what a supermarket is for, not through a "reward-punishment" system, but by being made to understand that a supermarket is where you buy things. If a child has to be punished because they misbehave in a supermarket then there is something already wrong with it (the child, not the supermarket).

Or, at least, this was the way i was brought up.

 - meg

[Samwise]

Most kids under the age of 3 don't have their abstract thought processes well developed enough to connect the words "when we go to the supermarket, don't run around" to the reality of actually being at the supermarket and not running around.  Even the most angelic child will need to learn via clarification and correction now and then - in fact, many adults are the same way (ask anyone who's tried to enforce a work process - most people will mess up a few times and need to be reminded of what they're supposed to be doing).

Of course, there's a world of difference between that and yelling because you're not getting a candy bar.  Any kid who yells to get his/her way is being a little shit regardless of where they're doing the yelling, and they're probably doing it because at some point the parent caved in to the yelling and taught the kid that yelling is an effective way of getting candy.

[Megrim]

Oh i most certainly agree that clarification is the way to go, but it just seemed to me that in the example given, the correction of a child's behaviour through "bribery"was definitely not the correct approach. But taking your suggestion of the work process further, can it really be considered the fault of the employees if the person supervising said work-process needs to clarify something? Or are we simply going round and round a rhetorical chicken-and-egg question of what is at fault: the bad instructions or the stupidity of the worker/child.

Which of course leads right back to the issue of parents who should have been shaved, sterilized and destroyed rather than being allowed to have kids.



On the other hand, this Lacuna Coil song is really, really good...

 - meg

[jpark]

I just can't relate to any of this.  In grade school I got the strap 3 times - and I would say it was a disincentive.  I don't know how teachers - or even parents - cope today.

[Trippy]

I just can't relate to any of this.  In grade school I got the strap 3 times - and I would say it was a disincentive.  I don't know how teachers - or even parents - cope today.

Drugs...lots of drugs (the legally prescribed kind).

[Roac]

The classic psychology also say that rewards are at maximum efficacy when they are not given every time, but just sometimes.

And it works because they expect it.  The pigeon, rat, or whatever will click the bar nonstop because it expects a reward.  You are still back to the situation of having a child having learned "behave to get a cookie".  And they will look to their reward-dispenser to get it.  And who might that be?  Oh, one more loop - what might the consequences be of a 3 year old, who is slightly smarter than a pigeon, and who might figure out how to manipulate the system?  Because kids never do that.

[Stephen Zepp]

I dunno, just dunno--but if you start thinking about the way our society has gone the last 25 years, and then think back to when all this "positive glowy goodness in raising your kids" all started, there just seems to be some sort of temporal causation here.

I can't even tell if things are -exactly- the same as they were 40 years ago, and it's just our media society that makes you know about it more, or if it's really getting as bad as it seems to be, but shit is going downhill FAST, and maybe, just maybe, it's a bit of "spare the rod, spoil the child".

Someone from here I think quoted, "Children are barbarians that need civilization beat into them"--and as rough as that sounds, it's true--civilization, societal contribuatory existence, and simply being nice aren't biological drives--they are almost exclusively learned behaviours, and not easy (or fun) ones to learn, as putting others (family, tribe, nation, whatever) "above" our own personal needs adds a completely new dimension to evolution.

I'd like to believe all the current thinking regarding how to raise a child, and I'd also like to think that we as human beings would respond better to this type of positive upbringing as opposed to negative reinforcement, but damn folks...9 year olds are killing each other, and 11 year olds are robbing banks and shit. That's not a sign of a healty society or species.

[penfold]

Sheesh, bring back corporate punishment as soon as possible i think.

Kids heal quickly for a reason.

[CmdrSlack]

Sheesh, bring back corporate punishment as soon as possible i think.

Kids heal quickly for a reason.

Behave or you'll have to work at WalMart!

[Paelos]

Sheesh, bring back corporate punishment as soon as possible i think.

Kids heal quickly for a reason.

Enron ftw?

[Mortriden]

You can defend yourself without ever restraining anyone. It would be a much simpler, safer and more matter to herd the child to another location where they can't disrupt class or endanger anyone else. 

You are absolutely right.  If at all possible the child should be removed from the classroom and placed in a room, by themselves (with a teacher, don't be foolish) so they can scream to their hearts content and not disrupt the class.  The problem being, at least in my county/district that laws have been passed that a classroom of students cannot, under any circumstances be left unattended, at anytime.  Therefore another teacher must come in to deal with the problem.  Stacked on top of this is the fact that most states are suffering under a lack of funding for teachers, and schools in general.  Which means most teachers are completely on their own in the classroom.  If a problem arises from a student that teacher must deal with the problem in front of the entire class, leading to the "two is a conversation, three is an audience" syndrome.

[Polysorbate80]

..safer and more matter...

Wow, can't tell I went to public skoolz, eh?  I meant to include "productive" in there...

You are absolutely right.  If at all possible the child should be removed from the classroom and placed in a room, by themselves (with a teacher, don't be foolish) so they can scream to their hearts content and not disrupt the class.  The problem being, at least in my county/district that laws have been passed that a classroom of students cannot, under any circumstances be left unattended, at anytime.  Therefore another teacher must come in to deal with the problem.  Stacked on top of this is the fact that most states are suffering under a lack of funding for teachers, and schools in general.  Which means most teachers are completely on their own in the classroom.  If a problem arises from a student that teacher must deal with the problem in front of the entire class, leading to the "two is a conversation, three is an audience" syndrome.

Office staff--principal, vice principal; hell, get the secretary to do it.  I know they're busy too, but they're the only backup the teacher's got these days.  When I went to school, the teacher would/could leave us alone for a few minutes if they needed to.  Which lead to much misbehavior for those few minutes, until the lookout told us the teacher was returning.  Not that we ever fooled the teacher, but we were young and stupid and thought we could...

[HaemishM]

You know, I notice that when someone mentions spankings, people tend to have bad associations, as if I'm advocating hauling off and smacking a kid the minute they get bad. If you have to resort to this type of immediate violence, you have already failed.

In my entire childhood (up through about age 10), I got spanked maybe 5 times. I wasn't a devil child, but I had a temper and a spoiled attitude and I threw my temper tantrums. I never got anything for the tantrum except a runny nose from crying and a hoarse throat. And if I threw my tantrum and continued to act up, or talked back to my parents, I got the stern, "You're overloading your ass," from my father. That tone of voice, with that phraseolgy let me instantly know, I'd exhausted all my slack. The next one was going to end up in a spanking, followed by being sent to my room without desert or tv for the rest of the night. The spankings weren't hard, or instantaneous; I got a chance to think about them, to dread them. They were completely restrained, but they still hurt, and afterwards, I got a hug and the rest of my punishment.

That's what I mean. Just belting a kid does no good, and probably a lot of harm. You have to be methodical and consistent in punishment. Violence is not there just for violence's sake, or for fear, but as a logical progression of authority being exercised. The wait for the spanking was a hundred times worse than the actual spanking.

[Astorax]

You know, I notice that when someone mentions spankings, people tend to have bad associations, as if I'm advocating hauling off and smacking a kid the minute they get bad. If you have to resort to this type of immediate violence, you have already failed.

In my entire childhood (up through about age 10), I got spanked maybe 5 times. I wasn't a devil child, but I had a temper and a spoiled attitude and I threw my temper tantrums. I never got anything for the tantrum except a runny nose from crying and a hoarse throat. And if I threw my tantrum and continued to act up, or talked back to my parents, I got the stern, "You're overloading your ass," from my father. That tone of voice, with that phraseolgy let me instantly know, I'd exhausted all my slack. The next one was going to end up in a spanking, followed by being sent to my room without desert or tv for the rest of the night. The spankings weren't hard, or instantaneous; I got a chance to think about them, to dread them. They were completely restrained, but they still hurt, and afterwards, I got a hug and the rest of my punishment.

That's what I mean. Just belting a kid does no good, and probably a lot of harm. You have to be methodical and consistent in punishment. Violence is not there just for violence's sake, or for fear, but as a logical progression of authority being exercised. The wait for the spanking was a hundred times worse than the actual spanking.

The reason the negative association is there, is because 99% of the time, it's NOT what you're describing here.  More often that this, it's a parent getting fed up, grabbing the screaming kid, tossin' 'em over the knee, whippin the belt off and smackin the heck out of 'em.  More often than a patient controlled response, it's a knee jerk response, which more often than not isn't truly warranted.

My particular point is, that the same response would have been gotten by simply skipping the spanking, and the ensuing hug to show that the parents still love you, and go straight to the sending to the room, etc.  My parents just tossed my brother out on the front porch when he threw tantrums, and closed the door (sliding glass, they could still see him, just not hear him as well).  When he behaved like a reasonable human being again, they let him in.  The reasoning was, while under this roof, you respect us and our rules.  When he didn't, they put him on the porch until he would.  Worked like a charm.  Never had to lay a hand on him.

There's always alternatives to spanking, it's just not a necessary form of punishment/discipline as long as the parents are willing to get creative with the punishment.

[Pococurante]

I can't even tell if things are -exactly- the same as they were 40 years ago, and it's just our media society that makes you know about it more, or if it's really getting as bad as it seems to be, but shit is going downhill FAST, and maybe, just maybe, it's a bit of "spare the rod, spoil the child".

A lot has changed that has nothing to do with society's trend to treat children better - we've been amazingly inhumane with children over human history.  Those changes were long overdue - like a lot of things people today want to change about our world it seems few are aware such laws were put in place (often in the face of decades of opposition) to minimize terrible cruelties.

The external factors today are much nastier and more pervasive - it's not that anything new is happening but what is happening is just so much more comprehensive with less room for mistakes.  Sensory overload is unprecedented.  The information communicated is unprecedentedly worldly.  It's no longer possible for middle class families to make it on one paycheck without risking financial ruin, and today's latchkey kids have much more to contend with while they're unsupervised.  Communities are rarely as cohesive as they once were - people move around, never develop attachments, don't have each other's back, and there is no willingness to intervene when it's needed.

It's easy to be a well-behaved kid when you're not so subject to the external factors.  Growing up in the 'burbs I got into a helluva lot more trouble than my wife and her two brothers did growing up on a farm.

We as adults haven't yet decided if we want a culture safe for kids, or one uninhibited for adults with childish impulses.  An awful lot of adults demand "the right" to be bad children rather than mature adults.  We see a lot of that here on f13 when we get on the FCC etc.

That said nothing excuses what we saw.  The mother in question may be pretty jammed up - holding down three jobs, sliding into bankruptcy, and no family/support network.  But any sympathy I might have had was gone when she jumped in bed with the first sleazebag ambulance chaser that came along.

[Roac]

The reason the negative association is there, is because 99% of the time, it's NOT what you're describing here.  More often that this, it's a parent getting fed up, grabbing the screaming kid, tossin' 'em over the knee, whippin the belt off and smackin the heck out of 'em.  More often than a patient controlled response, it's a knee jerk response, which more often than not isn't truly warranted.

That's just lousy parenting.  Doesn't mean that spanking is bad because the parent in your scenario have no clue how to be parents.  It's no better than parents who bribe their kids for behavior and spoil them to death in the process, and giving us the almost obscene sense of entitlement that too many children have.

I second Haemish, since his experience is pretty close to mine.  It was discipline with a very clear, spelled out purpose.  In my case, spankings were always for lying, and lying only; behavior issues were delt with by revoking privledges (TV, etc).  Dunno that the specific application meant as much as the framework that it was in.  What was more important, IMO, is that they had clear policies in our house, they made efforts to teach me in them, and the consequences were set.  Lying was the worst for them since it indicated utter disrespect, and something they were going to be sure to re-establish. 

Never had any desire to go beat up my sister or neighborhood kids afterward.  Neither did my sister.  Then again, we didn't get 'beat' in our home either.

[Paelos]

Nationwide parenting tests must be given. You fail, we raise your children in a boarding facility. You can visit on the weekends. Don't breed again.

[Fargull]

Haemish,

Like the Avatar and what you wrote.  Very well said.

Roac,

I was about polar opposite till this last post of yours.

Pococurante,

Nice read.

Paelos,

Thankfully we live in a society where we can have drastically different viewpoints.

The whole situation just makes me want to go GGGRRRRRR...  Seeing bad parenting in action makes my teeth hurt.

[Paelos]

I'm pretty toungue-in-cheek about the situation, but I do know people that have children that should never have had them. There's no real solution to that short of a breeding liscence, and we all know that won't happen. Ah well.

[Samwise]

If there were ever a birth control chemical with zero side effects for anyone and a simple antidote, I'd be 100% in favor of introducing it into the water supply.  My strong suspicion is that most unfit parents are people who didn't really want kids but lacked the ability to use birth control effectively.  People who actually want to be parents tend to do a better job of it.

[Bunk]

I had an odd experience a few years back that fits in this topic, so I'm curious as to what you folks think of it:

A friend and I, both in our late 20s at the time are walking around a fairly nice shopping mall.  A lady comes walking by, with her kid in tow - wailing like an air raid siren. Full out tantrum, bloted puurple face, the works. Annoying as hell to listen to.  Basically, mom was ignoring him utterly, just going on about her shopping while we all got to try and stop the bleeding from our ears.

Without going out of our way, we walked past these two. My friend very calmly bends over towards the child, puts his finger to his mouth, and goes "shhh". Well, I quickly learned where the child got his volume from. That mom went ballistic.. ranting in my friends face about how dare he do that to her child, etc, etc. I could see my friend internally debating decking the woman, but ended up just chuckling and we moved on.

I agree with the idea of not giving in to a child's tantrums - but does that give a parent the right to let their child make life hell for everyone in a two block radius around them?

[HaemishM]

Some parents just refuse to scold their children, especially in public. When I worked at a mall bookstore, years ago, they put us in a new store, all gussied-up. It was great... except they put the kid's section right by the register. So if you worked the register, you got to hear every single spoiled, loudmouth kid in the world totally go apeshit on their parents and anyone in range. From the "I WANT!" crowd to the ones who were left with one of those "sound" books to keep them busy, we got them all. Nothing like seeing some mentally deficient little crumbsnatcher repeatedly press the same sound button over and over and over while drooling and practically sweating boogers.

But my favorite was the lady whose child pissed the floor. She calmly told us what had happened, then just left. No offer to clean it up, no apologies, just "HERE'S THE PIDDLE KBYE!"