or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "violence is always wrong"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"violence is always wrong" - Page 3

post #41 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play, if not to foster violence, or at least desensetize(sp?) the person to violence?
It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength. Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.
post #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
I don't mean this in a snippy way, just pure innocent curiosity. Do you have sons and if so, how old are they?
Yes, 9 yo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
I think it's just a developmental thing with many boys and I don't think it's bad. I make a distinction, I guess, on where the play is coming from and how it's done.
I disagree. I think violence is taught. Human beings are not born with a need for violence.

A shark eating a fish is not violence, IMO. Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.
post #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnysideup
It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength. Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.
My children never pretended to physically fight, gunfight, nor swordfight. They have pretended to be hurt and the other was a surgeon and saves their life, all of which encompassed the bolded part above.

Also, the sandshark at the playground not only covers those feelings, but also gets them problem solving.
post #44 of 120
Quote:
It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength. Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.
Exactly.
post #45 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I disagree. I think violence is taught. Human beings are not born with a need for violence.
Gorrillas and other primates play wrestle, why not humans?
Quote:
A shark eating a fish is not violence, IMO. Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.
When play fighting they don't really cause each other pain though.
post #46 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnysideup
Gorrillas and other primates play wrestle, why not humans?
When play fighting they don't really cause each other pain though.
There is a huge difference between wrestling and pretending to stab your sister in the stomach.

Gorillas and other primates do not pretend to kill each other, to stab or mutilate each other, set fire to one another, or any other violent acts.
post #47 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
But I've come to realize that when my son waves his imaginary sword around, he really isn't pretending to stab or impale people in the way that we adults imagine. He's just waving his sword around. I've watched this development with fascination, as he's never been exposed to violent media of any kind (no cartoons with guns, no Star WArs and all that) and we don't own weapons. I think it's just a developmental thing with many boys and I don't think it's bad. Now, when my neighbor's preschooler boys are re-enacting Star Wars with their light-sabers, then that seems like inappropriate violent play to me, because it's coming purely from watching a violent movie that's not intended for toddlers and preschoolers. I make a distinction, I guess, on where the play is coming from and how it's done.
This is what I had ment by saying that I dont "encourage" violent play by bringing in a toy which purpose is ment for violent play. By bringing a light sabre into the house, or a sword, or a toy gun for example, I would be encouraging that sort of play. I must say that my boys have been known to play some form of swords with anything they can find to do so , but in our case the boys had been exposed to a commercial in which some little guys had been playing with a light sabre. If they had not been exposed to that commercial, I don't think that type of play would have been explored (yet at least! )
It really bothers me when people say that it is in a boys nature to be violent... agressive a little maybe! But we encourage little boys to be that way from an early age.(just look in any toy stores boy aisles) We encourage our little girls (many mamas here encourage thier little boys too... but not in the mainstream) to be nurturing. I know a few parents who have not encouraged that side of thier little girls(through most toys geared for little girls) and by nature they have been very agressive. What I mean to say is that I believe we can nurture any type of behavior in our children.
I have had parents criticise my parenting because my boys arent as agressive as other boys. Theyve offered me books about how boys "need " to play in that way. I disagree. I have not offered agressive toys and they have found wonderful ways to play and express thier emotions without " killing " anything or anyone in the process! They are boys... and allowed to take a natural course of play, are much less agressive than other boys who have been offered the alternative.
post #48 of 120
MamaInTheBoonies, I don't think playing rough, playing at violence, and real violence are the same thing. My martial art encompasses boxing, kicking, wrestling, choke holds, and joint holds. Even if people are sparring full out, that is not violence. That is rough play. Experience teaches the practitioners exactly what amount of force to use to avoid actually injuring their opponent. My DH has been running his mixed martial arts school for seven years and has never had a serious injury occur to any of his students in the school or at a competition. I feel (and most other MMA artists would agree) that the best part of hard physical training is the close connection that forms among all the students. We are all on the same team, helping each other train our bodies and learn new skills. Physical touch is absent from American society and is generally frowned upon. But studies show that humans need physical human contact to be happy. Contact sports are a great way to get the contact we all need. My favorite stress reliever at the end of a hard day is to wrestle on the living room floor with my son. This fosters and re-establishes our deep connection after having been apart all day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play,
Fun? I used to play paintball. Do you think I was using it as practice so I could go out and shoot people? Uhhh, no. I was just going out to play with my friends.

Quote:
Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another.
You need to rethink your definition of violence. I give shots to animals. I deliberately cause them pain. Is that violence? Two people in a boxing match, both agreeing to a set of rules, trying to win by a knockout. Is that violence? No. Violence must VIOLATE someone's rights against their will. Two children playing cops and robbers, and the 'cop' shoots the 'robber', and the 'robber' dies in a dramatic and prolonged death scene before both of them collapse in giggles. Is that violence? No, that is two kids forming a bond of friendship and learning to cooperatively role-play.

Quote:
My children never pretended to physically fight, gunfight, nor swordfight.
That's fine, but are you trying to say that all children who engage in rough play are going to be violent, war-mongering, hate-filled adults?

I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast, exclusionary behaviors, trash talking. Wouldn't you rather your kids were engaging with other kids in playing "Hamburger Hill" than the ones no one plays with and everyone calls names?

Stealing is a violation of another person's rights. But by your definition, stealing would not be violence. I consider stealing to be violence.


Quote:
I think allowing my children to play violently will not teach them to think and use other means to solve problems. There are healthier ways to teach them how to think and solve problems without the use of violence.
Not for Carlie Brucia and many other abducted and abused children. I hope you don't think that I advocate physical fighting as the only means for children to play or sort out problems. But it is one way, and it is necessary sometimes. So you think that by allowing your children to even play one rough-and-tumble game will make them unable to function in other cognitive ways? Talking out your problems is not going to help if you've already been identified and targeted by a predator.

Quote:
There are plenty of martial arts that not only teach self-defense, but also non-violence.
Yeah, the pansy ones! Don't worry, when DH teaches his classes, he always stresses the difference between situations when physical defense is appropriate or inappropriate.

Quote:
Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.
I agree that no child should be caused pain, if at all avoidable. But sometimes children must undergo painful medical procedures or endure an uncomfortable hot summer day.

But I believe that spanking children does fit my description of violence. Children have the right to not be hit against their will. When two children are engaging in a pillow fight or stick fight, both having fun, that can't be violence.
post #49 of 120
[QUOTE=QueenOfThePride
I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast, exclusionary behaviors, trash talking. Wouldn't you rather your kids were engaging with other kids in playing "Hamburger Hill" than the ones no one plays with and everyone calls names?
.[/QUOTE
Eeep!!! I forgot how uncool it was for my kids to be gentle and nice!
Better toughen them up so people don't think we are freaks!

can you explain the trash talking comment for me? I dont get it.
post #50 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
MamaInTheBoonies, I don't think playing rough, playing at violence, and real violence are the same thing.
Neither do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
Physical touch is absent from American society and is generally frowned upon.
That may be true, but I would not replace hugs with hitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
But studies show that humans need physical human contact to be happy. Contact sports are a great way to get the contact we all need.
I disagree. I believe that snuggling, holding hands, rubbing your child's back, and many more non-violent actions are healthier to meet the need for human contact.
I would not want my child to feel that they are making/getting human contact during sports. Sports is a time for learning teamwork and skills, not fulfill a need. IMO, that is unhealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
My favorite stress reliever at the end of a hard day is to wrestle on the living room floor with my son. This fosters and re-establishes our deep connection after having been apart all day.
That sounds cool.



Quote:
Fun? I used to play paintball. Do you think I was using it as practice so I could go out and shoot people? Uhhh, no. I was just going out to play with my friends.
Well, you are practicing/learning the skills necessary to shoot people, and I really don't want my child to learn those skills.



Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
You need to rethink your definition of violence. I give shots to animals. I deliberately cause them pain. Is that violence?
No, and I am not willing to 'rethink' or redefine the meaning of violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
Two people in a boxing match, both agreeing to a set of rules, trying to win by a knockout. Is that violence? No. Violence must VIOLATE someone's rights against their will. Two children playing cops and robbers, and the 'cop' shoots the 'robber', and the 'robber' dies in a dramatic and prolonged death scene before both of them collapse in giggles. Is that violence? No, that is two kids forming a bond of friendship and learning to cooperatively role-play.
Wow. I think YOU need to learn the definition of violence. All of the above is violence, and it is not a verb variant of violate. You can violate without violence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
That's fine, but are you trying to say that all children who engage in rough play are going to be violent, war-mongering, hate-filled adults?
No, but will they think before they act, every time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast, exclusionary behaviors, trash talking. Wouldn't you rather your kids were engaging with other kids in playing "Hamburger Hill" than the ones no one plays with and everyone calls names?
I have no idea what you are talking about. non-violent does not equal anti-social.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
Stealing is a violation of another person's rights. But by your definition, stealing would not be violence. I consider stealing to be violence.
It's not a definition I pulled out of my .



Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
But it is one way, and it is necessary sometimes. So you think that by allowing your children to even play one rough-and-tumble game will make them unable to function in other cognitive ways? Talking out your problems is not going to help if you've already been identified and targeted by a predator.
That's why I am not raising my children to be prey.




Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
I agree that no child should be caused pain, if at all avoidable. But sometimes children must undergo painful medical procedures or endure an uncomfortable hot summer day.
We are talking deliberately caused pain here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
But I believe that spanking children does fit my description of violence. Children have the right to not be hit against their will. When two children are engaging in a pillow fight or stick fight, both having fun, that can't be violence.
How?
post #51 of 120
Clearly, we are never going to agree.
post #52 of 120
I have such mixed feelings about this stuff. I am an avowed pacifist and I feel a huge responsibility to raise a peace-loving child. And I do this by example and by sharing my values and beliefs around violence. I do not allow weapons of any kind, toy or otherwise, in my house. Violent play just feels icky to me... I am not comfortable with it. I know plenty of really peaceful, gentle, loving men who grew up with bb guns. I don't think that allowing your child to play with violence means raising a violent person. But, I know plenty of perfectly healthy adults who grew up on television, too, and I'm not going there, either.

And yet, I have a child who is fascinated with violence, who wanted to be a pirate with a big sword for Halloween (and settled for being a pirate with a periscope and a parrot. ). When violent play happens in my house, we do some redirecting (but, I'm not talking about, "Ooooh, that's not good! Let's have a tea party!" More like, "This is a house of peace, and you're talking about shooting somebody. I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play. What else could we do that would be exciting? Want to fight fires? Want to wrestle?" It has reached the point where I can just say, "House of peace..." and he gets it.). And, lately he has started learning more about animals and dinosaurs, and I'm more comfortable with his violent play when he's pretending to be a T Rex trying to catch another dinosaur for dinner. Or pretending to be a cougar pouncing on a deer. : It's a fine line.

I do think that this stuff comes naturally to kids. Well, aggressive play comes naturally, and it's a channel and an outlet for some feelings, a way to work some stuff out. I just see a vast difference between working stuff out by playing cougar and working it out by killing bad guys. I have to be honest, though, and admit that my child is too smart for my redirection. It becomes a little game we play sometimes (i.e. "Mama! I'm shooting bad guys" "House of peace, buddy. House of peace." "Hmmmm, ok. I'm shooting... uh, water! Yeah, water!"). So, how much difference am I really making here, huh? At least he understands my values.
post #53 of 120
yes... I get the " Im not shooting mama.... Im balling".....
post #54 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenOfThePride
Clearly, we are never going to agree.
Yeah...See, to me, the sandshark thing is violence (natural violence maybe). We are vegetarians and my oldest son is very upset at the idea of people or animals eating animals. In pretending a shark is eating someone, for example, the technical definition of that involves using sharp teeth to rip the flesh off bones while the person is still alive. To me, that's extremely violent. But like I said with the waving sword thing, I don't think kids usually think about it in such detail as we adults do. I'm telling you, I have never met a kid more gentle than my 4yo, but he's waving this imaginary sword around. I really do think it fulfills some sort of developmental need to be powerful and I don't think he's really thought about what the sword would be doing. I mean, he's very concerned about lions eating other animals and is rationalizing that the lions must feel sorry. So the game about the animal trying to gobble us up would be violent to him. But the imaginary sword thing is just not violent play.

I swear that I have basically treated him, in cultural terms, like a girl, as I have no brothers and he was my first child. We never had sports items or cars or anything in our house. I very strictly control their media exposure. He's not in preschool or playdate situations where he would be modeling behavior. He's all about tea parties and he's sleeping with two baby-dolls as I type this. But he's drawing and cutting out swords, with his only exposure being a picture of a knight. I don't think it's violent. I think it's developmentally normal. I just think that maybe different kids fulfill this need to be powerful differently. Kids are different. I'm not concerned. I guess we agree to disagree.
post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
Yeah...See, to me, the sandshark thing is violence (natural violence maybe). We are vegetarians and my oldest son is very upset at the idea of people or animals eating animals. In pretending a shark is eating someone, for example, the technical definition of that involves using sharp teeth to rip the flesh off bones while the person is still alive. To me, that's extremely violent.
Yes, if the person was still alive, I suppose that would be violent to witness, but most animals are not eaten that way. It is safer to kill them quickly, because one, you are assured they will not run away, and two, you are less likely to get hurt by your kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
But like I said with the waving sword thing, I don't think kids usually think about it in such detail as we adults do.
I am sorry, but a sword was a weapon designed specifically for hurting and/or killing other human beings, and I just cannot have that in my home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
I mean, he's very concerned about lions eating other animals and is rationalizing that the lions must feel sorry. So the game about the animal trying to gobble us up would be violent to him. But the imaginary sword thing is just not violent play.
I would not want my children to have irrational fears about the nature of carnivorous animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
I just think that maybe different kids fulfill this need to be powerful differently. Kids are different. I'm not concerned.
I am saying that I would not raise my child to feel powerful when they act violently. That is not something to take pride in.
post #56 of 120
Since I'm the one who said some of the Playmobil figures were violent, maybe I should weigh in. Six out of seventeen of the figures on the link that I gave were holding weapons. I personally wouldn't introduce those types of toys to my son. He'd have to specifically ask for them.

My son is only three, and asks a million questions about everything. I really don't want to go into specifics about swords, that they're made to hurt and kill people, why people want to hurt and kill people, what exactly a sword does when it is thrust at a person, what a stab wound looks like, what a stab wound feels like, who has real swords, will somebody stab DS, etc. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't understand most of my explanations, anyway, and I don't even understand why some people want to hurt and kill other people. If he comes to enjoy playing swordfights on his own, then I won't discourage it, but I definitely won't be the one introducing it.

I'm reading this thread with interest. I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.
post #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
Yes, if the person was still alive, I suppose that would be violent to witness, but most animals are not eaten that way.
I would not want my children to have irrational fears about the nature of carnivorous animals.
But the animal still has to kill and it's often not in a pleasant way, so that's still very violent. I've seen it on the Discovery channel and it still looks horrible. It also seems like lots of animals are still alive, because the severe blood loss from the first bite or two causes the victim to submit.

My son doesn't have irrational fears about those animals. He thinks thos animals (and people) are wrong. He thinks that, to cause such violence to another animal (eating someone's body) must mean (he hopes) that the aggressor is sorry. He can't wrap his head around the action of killing something and eating its body, just like you can't wrap your head around playing with swords.

I mean no disrespect to you and I've enjoyed our debate. I'm afraid I'm bowing out of it now, however. It's taking too much internal energy.
post #58 of 120
I agree that some of the Playmobil figures are violent. It bugs me. I love Playmobil, and my kid is absolutely addicted to them. But why do they have to give the cops/pirates/cowboys guns? Why do they have to have swords and cannons? We take those pieces away before giving them. : I know, I'm a freak.
post #59 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nurturing Mama
I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.
I think the important thing to remember is that kids work through a lot of issues with play and stories-- difficult emotions, fear, aggression, and powerlessness. I think you can still teach your values while still being respectful of the child's need to play out their aggression or their fears or whatever. We talk about our values and demonstrate them in the way we live. I am a pacifist and I don't see any reason why anyone would need a handgun. They should be illegal imho. But I enjoyed the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. Some kids like to play pirates for the same reason some of us find movies like this enjoyable. Why should I forbid it? Playing a game is like telling a story. They don't want to be a real pirate. They don't really want to hurt anyone. Adults can sometimes have issues with being too literal about play. Is a snowball fight ok? What about one where each team has a castle and the snowballs are cannonballs blasting the other team's wall?
post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
But the animal still has to kill and it's often not in a pleasant way, so that's still very violent. I've seen it on the Discovery channel and it still looks horrible.
I guess I know that consuming meat is the only way a carnivorous animal can survive and IMO, it is wrong to instill irrational fears in my children. There is nothing wrong or violent about hunting and eating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftField
He can't wrap his head around the action of killing something and eating its body, just like you can't wrap your head around playing with swords.
My children know it's perfectally normal to kill an animal and eat it. There is nothing wrong or bad about that. It is wrong, bad, and plain mean to be violent. A baseball bat or tennis racket can be swung around and help a child develop the same physical strengths as swinging a sword, and neither was specifically made to cause harm like a sword is.

Quote:
I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.
My children are quite aware of the definition of violence and what it is and is not. Unfortunately, I cannot shelter my children from violence, but I can raise them to be non-violent. Just because we witness something, does not mean we have to repeat the action or even condone it. I want my children to be able to use their higher thinking when they make choices.

Even in something as simple as a locked door. Do they immediately smash it open, do they look for the key, do they look for another way in?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "violence is always wrong"