Discipline for children

[credoconsolans]

Davka and Emily - excellent posts.

The world is one big mass of gray and not black and white as some people seem to assume when it comes to disciplining children.

All children are different, not all of them respond to the same things. Parents need to be flexible and have many options for discipline at their disposal.

 

[credoconsolans]

I understand that you feel you've raised pertinent issues about efficacy. I also note that pertinent questions about alternative approaches have been swept under the rug. The response appears to be "I don't know what you should do, as long as you don't spank them!"

How about you provide some enlightenment on the appropriate alternative methods for each age range?

Disciplining your children can take a huge variety of forms in many contexts, but I'll do my best:

Age 0 - 5

Don't hit your kids under any circumstances. They are not internalizing your punishment and it is not a deterrent for behavior. On the other hand, start the habit of *explaining* why the things they are doing is wrong when they do them in a reasonable manner that respects them as an autonomous person. If they are making noise in public despite all of your efforts: deal with it and realize that kids of that age are going to make noise. If they cry because they want something, set the standard that they are not going to get a reward for their behavior. By doing all of this you start a relationship of respect between yourself and your child and they... will actually listen to the shit you say rather than hate you.

Oh boy, there are a lot of people out there who will not thank a parent for letting their kid scream in public places and not do anything about it.

Age 5 - 10

Continue the same type of thing as you did before. Now they are getting to the age where they might actually start understanding things, so it's crucial that you explain to them the logic of why things are wrong. If they keep doing things that are wrong take away privileges. If they correct their behavior give them more privileges.

Assuming of course, they have privileges they care about. You might want to consider what someone posted earlier. Not everyone has sufficient disposable income that their kids have a list of things they enjoy and are able to do.

In some families, the list of privileges may start and stop with "TV".

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

If timeouts actually worked you wouldn't have to do it more than once...you can say that about almost any type of discipline.

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?

I think that says more about the parents than anything else.

 

[Angry Floof]

The world is one big mass of gray and not black and white as some people seem to assume when it comes to disciplining children.

All children are different, not all of them respond to the same things. Parents need to be flexible and have many options at their disposal.

Totally agree. Except hitting is a completely unnecessary option. The black and white you refer to can be seen in the adamant defense of hitting children in this thread and not as you suggest "gray area" nuance of thinking. It's reaching. It's using good brains to justify something already believed and stated and not used for the thoughtful ambivalence you imply. Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance. If the temporary compliance is a matter of emergency, a lot of responses from parents can be forgiven. (I'd sure as hell shove and yell at a kid who's about to get hit by a car.) But as a matter of routine discipline, there isn't evidence presented thus far that a parent can use spanking as a tool of rearing children with the hope of producing adults who at the very least are not plagued with emotional and psychological struggles. I'll assume that most parents would like their children to grow up with as few personal disadvantages as possible.

I'll ask again. What is the good that comes from hitting children? Can anyone answer this simple question without resorting to dreaming up extremes and meticulously specific situations and anecdotes?

 

[credoconsolans]

The world is one big mass of gray and not black and white as some people seem to assume when it comes to disciplining children.

All children are different, not all of them respond to the same things. Parents need to be flexible and have many options at their disposal.

Totally agree. Except hitting is a completely unnecessary option.

Not according to some people.

The black and white you refer to can be seen in the adamant defense of hitting children in this thread and not as you suggest "gray area" nuance of thinking. It's reaching. It's using good brains to justify something already believed and stated and not used for the thoughtful ambivalence you imply. Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Those of us who have experienced it can say the opposite. It may not work for everyone, but it does work for some. Which is why it is just ONE tool, not the ONLY tool.

If the temporary compliance is a matter of emergency, a lot of responses from parents can be forgiven. (I'd sure as hell shove and yell at a kid who's about to get hit by a car.) But as a matter of routine discipline, there isn't evidence presented thus far that a parent can use spanking as a tool of rearing children with the hope of producing adults who at the very least are not plagued with emotional and psychological struggles.

Except it has happened.

I'll ask again. What is the good that comes from hitting children? Can anyone answer this simple question without resorting to dreaming up extremes and meticulously specific situations and anecdotes?

We keep repeating that it disciplines children. Detractors say, "that's not possible because the studies don't bear this out", yet we can all point to people we know and people in the past and our own families and selves where it has indeed worked. They may be 'anecdotes' but the fact remains. It does work and we have examples.

 

[Angry Floof]

Totally agree. Except hitting is a completely unnecessary option.

Not according to some people.

Ya think? They can say it until they turn blue, but I asked for evidence that hitting children actually does any good and I'm not getting it.

The black and white you refer to can be seen in the adamant defense of hitting children in this thread and not as you suggest "gray area" nuance of thinking. It's reaching. It's using good brains to justify something already believed and stated and not used for the thoughtful ambivalence you imply. Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Those of us who have experienced it can say the opposite. It may not work for everyone, but it does work for some. Which is why it is just ONE tool, not the ONLY tool.

There's no evidence that it does any good at all other than temporary compliance to please parents and avoid more hitting. What "works" for a parent depends on what that parent says "works" for them (which is temporary compliance... if there's some other benefit to your definition of "works," well, I'm still asking for that).

If the temporary compliance is a matter of emergency, a lot of responses from parents can be forgiven. (I'd sure as hell shove and yell at a kid who's about to get hit by a car.) But as a matter of routine discipline, there isn't evidence presented thus far that a parent can use spanking as a tool of rearing children with the hope of producing adults who at the very least are not plagued with emotional and psychological struggles.

Except it has happened.

So? What we do know about hitting children is that it does increase the risk of a lifetime of dysfunction and suffering. This means some children will dodge that bullet. Even then, it's hard to say what subtle traumatic effects individuals might be carrying around inside them as they go through life. Wouldn't even the subtle, mild possible effects be undesirable to parents?

You would reject the view with evidence that errs on the side of protecting children from damage in favor of the one that is supported by no evidence whatsoever?

I'll ask again. What is the good that comes from hitting children? Can anyone answer this simple question without resorting to dreaming up extremes and meticulously specific situations and anecdotes?

We keep repeating that it disciplines children. Detractors say, "that's not possible because the studies don't bear this out", yet we can all point to people we know and people in the past and our own families and selves where it has indeed worked. They may be 'anedotes' but the fact remains. It does work and we have examples.

I guess that depends on what a parent believes is "discipline" as well as what goals for the child that parent has in mind. Temporary compliance, other than emergency situations, only benefits adults. And the more temporary compliance you spank into your chldren, the more likely they will reject everything you think you're teaching them. Rebellion, aggression, and bullying are not always the result of spanking, but how often does that have to be the case before you'd notice that it's not really worth it?

 

[Angry Floof]

I also find it a lame argument to say "so and so grew up just fine with spankings," as if any parent could ever predict the long term consequences of hitting their children.

"I really just want my child to obey me and follow my rules for his entire life, so spanking is good in that respect. As for those crazy nay-sayers, well, I'm sure my child will be the one to dodge the bullet of nervous system damage that leads to anxiety, depression, and other problems in life."

 

[credoconsolans]

I also find it a lame argument to say "so and so grew up just fine with spankings," as if any parent could ever predict the long term consequences of hitting their children. anything they do to their children.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Angry Floof]

I also find it a lame argument to say "so and so grew up just fine with spankings," as if any parent could ever predict the long term consequences of hitting their children. anything they do to their children.

Fixed it for you.

That's disingenuous of you, Credo. If science is telling parents what the risks are of certain choices they make, the argument that "there is still a lot of other stuff we can't predict so therefore I'll still do the stuff science says is risky" is even more fucking lame than what I posted.

 

[credoconsolans]

Not according to some people.

Ya think? They can say it until they turn blue, but I asked for evidence that hitting children actually does any good and I'm not getting it.

We keep giving it, but some people just don't accept it.

The black and white you refer to can be seen in the adamant defense of hitting children in this thread and not as you suggest "gray area" nuance of thinking. It's reaching. It's using good brains to justify something already believed and stated and not used for the thoughtful ambivalence you imply. Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Those of us who have experienced it can say the opposite. It may not work for everyone, but it does work for some. Which is why it is just ONE tool, not the ONLY tool.

There's no evidence that it does any good at all other than temporary compliance to please parents and avoid more hitting. What "works" for a parent depends on what that parent says "works" for them (which is temporary compliance... if there's some other benefit to your definition of "works," well, I'm still asking for that).

You keep saying that and we keep saying right back that 'No, my parents only had to spank me once or twice and then I avoided being spanked forever more."

If the temporary compliance is a matter of emergency, a lot of responses from parents can be forgiven. (I'd sure as hell shove and yell at a kid who's about to get hit by a car.) But as a matter of routine discipline, there isn't evidence presented thus far that a parent can use spanking as a tool of rearing children with the hope of producing adults who at the very least are not plagued with emotional and psychological struggles.

Except it has happened.

So?

So? So that's the entire point of the argument!!! It works in some cases and thus is a useful tool for disciplining children.

I'll ask again. What is the good that comes from hitting children? Can anyone answer this simple question without resorting to dreaming up extremes and meticulously specific situations and anecdotes?

We keep repeating that it disciplines children. Detractors say, "that's not possible because the studies don't bear this out", yet we can all point to people we know and people in the past and our own families and selves where it has indeed worked. They may be 'anecdotes' but the fact remains. It does work and we have examples.

I guess that depends on what a parent believes is "discipline" as well as what goals for the child that parent has in mind. Temporary compliance, other than emergency situations, only benefits adults. And the more temporary compliance you spank into your chldren, the more likely they will reject everything you think you're teaching them. Rebellion, aggression, and bullying are not always the result of spanking, but how often does that have to be the case before you'd notice that it's not really worth it?

Except it's not always "temporary". Sometimes it works permanently as a discipline.

Honestly, some of the arguments here are down to

"You gonna believe the studies or your own lying life experiences?"

 

[Emily Lake]

Disciplining your children can take a huge variety of forms in many contexts, but I'll do my best:

Age 0 - 5

Don't hit your kids under any circumstances. They are not internalizing your punishment and it is not a deterrent for behavior. On the other hand, start the habit of *explaining* why the things they are doing is wrong when they do them in a reasonable manner that respects them as an autonomous person. If they are making noise in public despite all of your efforts: deal with it and realize that kids of that age are going to make noise. If they cry because they want something, set the standard that they are not going to get a reward for their behavior. By doing all of this you start a relationship of respect between yourself and your child and they... will actually listen to the shit you say rather than hate you.

I'm sorry... have you ever actually tried to explain why things are not acceptable to a two year old? Have you actually attempted to explain why grabbing toys off a shelf and throwing them at other shoppers and then having a complete unbridled meltdown for the next 30 minutes is not okay to a four year old? I suggest you give that a go and get back to me on how well that worked out for you, and how well they listened to you. Maybe by the time they hit five they've begun to listen to you and actually comprehend the meaning of what you're saying... but right now I strongly suspect that you've not spent any time around toddlers at all.

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

So if time-outs actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

So if patient and loving reasoning with your two year old actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

Try again, with a little bit more reason involved, if you please.

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?

Again... have you ever actually spent time around children? Were you ever a child?

 

[Jokodo]

I understand that you feel you've raised pertinent issues about efficacy. I also note that pertinent questions about alternative approaches have been swept under the rug. The response appears to be "I don't know what you should do, as long as you don't spank them!"

How about you provide some enlightenment on the appropriate alternative methods for each age range?

Disciplining your children can take a huge variety of forms in many contexts, but I'll do my best:

Age 0 - 5

Don't hit your kids under any circumstances. They are not internalizing your punishment and it is not a deterrent for behavior. On the other hand, start the habit of *explaining* why the things they are doing is wrong when they do them in a reasonable manner that respects them as an autonomous person. If they are making noise in public despite all of your efforts: deal with it and realize that kids of that age are going to make noise. If they cry because they want something, set the standard that they are not going to get a reward for their behavior. By doing all of this you start a relationship of respect between yourself and your child and they... will actually listen to the shit you say rather than hate you.

Age 5 - 10

Continue the same type of thing as you did before. Now they are getting to the age where they might actually start understanding things, so it's crucial that you explain to them the logic of why things are wrong. If they keep doing things that are wrong take away privileges. If they correct their behavior give them more privileges.

Age 10+

Don't spank your kids.

- - - Updated - - -

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?

I haven't even read your advice. Like other parents, I don't take well to parenting advice from people who don't have kids, so even as we agree in principle, it's probably better I don't. For both of us. I will get riled up even if it's about minor details.

But since anecdotal evidence seems to be an accepted currency in this thread, here's some from the father of a four-year old who doesn't do spanking. I am far from claiming to be a perfect parent or anything of the kind. But I must be doing something right, otherwise I wouldn't have all those people who vowed to never have kids tell me they'd reconsider if only all kids were like him.

If anyone is claiming that kids need punishment to internalise things (conditional sentence lest I be accused of a strawman), they're wrong. Our kid basically started to tell off other kids when they did wrong as soon as he could talk, and we got him there by explaining why it was wrong. No spanking necessary.

I trust him to charge ahead when he's riding his bike on the sidewalk because I know he'll wait for me when he comes to a street, and we got him there through his recognition of our panic as we were running after him the first few times he did it, when he first got his bike (then a balance bike without pedals), back when he was just under two and a half. No spanking necessary. (And we do live in a heavily built-up area of a large city.)

He does have his moments. If I tell him to leave the playground now, he'll refuse, screaming, trying to free himself if I grab him, trying to hurt as he does so, all of it. But you can compromise with him: Tell him you're leaving in ten minutes and he'll be packing his toys by the time I come back from rolling up a cigarette and smoking it just outside the playground proper. Is planning ahead for fucking ten minutes to high a price to pay for not spanking your child?

There's bad behaviour I'm not quite getting out of him. He sometimes loves to lick the windows of the tramway, and since charging cars are a lot easier to grasp, I seem to be failing to teach him why it's wrong. Funnily, this bad habit which I'm most likely to physically constrain him or sharply pull him away in way I know hurts him is the one he's not giving up. Talk about the efficiency of physical punishment.

It's anecdotal, I know. But it's anecdotal evidence that raising a child without episodes of premediated violence works. That's still much more to the point than anecdotal evidence that it might not always be all that harmful, which is the best the other side has come up with.

 

[credoconsolans]

Fixed it for you.

That's disingenuous of you, Credo. If science is telling parents what the risks are of certain choices they make, the argument that "there is still a lot of other stuff we can't predict so therefore I'll still do the stuff science says is risky" is even more fucking lame than what I posted.

Not disingenuous. True. Sorry, not all kids are the same, so not all kids react the same.

How many kids were traumatized by the Disney movie "Bambi"?

 

[rousseau]

I'm sorry... have you ever actually tried to explain why things are not acceptable to a two year old? Have you actually attempted to explain why grabbing toys off a shelf and throwing them at other shoppers and then having a complete unbridled meltdown for the next 30 minutes is not okay to a four year old? I suggest you give that a go and get back to me on how well that worked out for you, and how well they listened to you. Maybe by the time they hit five they've begun to listen to you and actually comprehend the meaning of what you're saying... but right now I strongly suspect that you've not spent any time around toddlers at all.

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

So if time-outs actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

So if patient and loving reasoning with your two year old actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

Try again, with a little bit more reason involved, if you please.

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?

Again... have you ever actually spent time around children? Were you ever a child?

You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you, but my thoughts on disciplining children is not what we're talking about.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Not one advocate of time-outs has provided evidence that time-outs do any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Not one advocate of reasoned loving discussion with toddlers has provided evidence that reasoned loving discussion with toddlers does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Actually nobody has managed to provide any evidence that reasoned loving discussion with toddlers even manages to produce temporary compliance but I'm not going to push that point

 

[Emily Lake]

there isn't evidence presented thus far that a parent can use spanking as a tool of rearing children with the hope of producing adults who at the very least are not plagued with emotional and psychological struggles.

Except it has happened.

Ditto. I'm not plagued by emotional or psychological struggles. I'm quite happy, content, and problem free. It would probably be easier for you to accept this if you could distinguish between the occasional spanking and abusive beatings.

 

[rousseau]

Disciplining your children can take a huge variety of forms in many contexts, but I'll do my best:

Age 0 - 5

Don't hit your kids under any circumstances. They are not internalizing your punishment and it is not a deterrent for behavior. On the other hand, start the habit of *explaining* why the things they are doing is wrong when they do them in a reasonable manner that respects them as an autonomous person. If they are making noise in public despite all of your efforts: deal with it and realize that kids of that age are going to make noise. If they cry because they want something, set the standard that they are not going to get a reward for their behavior. By doing all of this you start a relationship of respect between yourself and your child and they... will actually listen to the shit you say rather than hate you.

Age 5 - 10

Continue the same type of thing as you did before. Now they are getting to the age where they might actually start understanding things, so it's crucial that you explain to them the logic of why things are wrong. If they keep doing things that are wrong take away privileges. If they correct their behavior give them more privileges.

Age 10+

Don't spank your kids.

- - - Updated - - -

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?

I haven't even read your advice. Like other parents, I don't take well to parenting advice from people who don't have kids, so even as we agree in principle, it's probably better I don't. For both of us. I will get riled up even if it's about minor details.

But since anecdotal evidence seems to be an accepted currency in this thread, here's some from the father of a four-year old who doesn't do spanking. I am far from claiming to be a perfect parent or anything of the kind. But I must be doing something right, otherwise I wouldn't have all those people who vowed to never have kids tell me they'd reconsider if only all kids were like him.

If anyone is claiming that kids need punishment to internalise things (conditional sentence lest I be accused of a strawman), they're wrong. Our kid basically started to tell off other kids when they did wrong as soon as he could talk, and we got him there by explaining why it was wrong. No spanking necessary.

I trust him to charge ahead when he's riding his bike on the sidewalk because I know he'll wait for me when he comes to a street, and we got him there through his recognition of our panic as we were running after him the first few times he did it, when he first got his bike (then a balance bike without pedals), back when he was just under two and a half. No spanking necessary. (And we do live in a heavily built-up area of a large city.)

He does have his moments. If I tell him to leave the playground now, he'll refuse, screaming, trying to free himself if I grab him, trying to hurt as he does so, all of it. But you can compromise with him: Tell him you're leaving in ten minutes and he'll be packing his toys by the time I come back from rolling up a cigarette and smoking it just outside the playground proper. Is planning ahead for fucking ten minutes to high a price to pay for not spanking your child?

There's bad behaviour I'm not quite getting out of him. He sometimes loves to lick the windows of the tramway, and since charging cars are a lot easier to grasp, I seem to be failing to teach him why it's wrong. Funnily, this bad habit which I'm most likely to physically constrain him or sharply pull him away in way I know hurts him is the one he's not giving up. Talk about the efficiency of physical punishment.

It's anecdotal, I know. But it's anecdotal evidence that raising a child without episodes of premediated violence works. That's still much more to the point than anecdotal evidence that it might not always be all that harmful, which is the best the other side has come up with.

Your anecdotal evidence lines up fine with my thoughts.

One of my good friends has an incredible relationship with her son who is immaculately behaved without any type of physicality, and it all comes back to mutual respect. Hitting *anything* is not the way to gather respect from said thing.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm sorry... have you ever actually tried to explain why things are not acceptable to a two year old?

I have. That made him explain it to the one-and-a-half year olds, to the point where it was almost embarassing how bossy he was.

Have you actually attempted to explain why grabbing toys off a shelf and throwing them at other shoppers and then having a complete unbridled meltdown for the next 30 minutes is not okay to a four year old?

I haven't had to.

I suggest you give that a go and get back to me on how well that worked out for you, and how well they listened to you. Maybe by the time they hit five they've begun to listen to you and actually comprehend the meaning of what you're saying... but right now I strongly suspect that you've not spent any time around toddlers at all.

I have barely skimmed rousseau's post -- like other parents, I don't take too well to parenting advice from people without kids -- but if your objections are the best that can be said against them, He probably isn't all that far off base.

 

[Angry Floof]

Not one advocate of spanking has provided evidence that spanking does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Not one advocate of time-outs has provided evidence that time-outs do any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Not one advocate of reasoned loving discussion with toddlers has provided evidence that reasoned loving discussion with toddlers does any good at all other than temporary compliance.

Actually nobody has managed to provide any evidence that reasoned loving discussion with toddlers even manages to produce temporary compliance but I'm not going to push that point

You don't have to push it. For your post to be relevant, you need to show that these options risk damage.

As Credo and others have rightly stated, raising kids is hardly an endeavor of certainty. I don't know if you have kids, but there are times when you need them to settle down. If you experiment with something loving and kind and non-violent, then more power to you. Let us know how it works. Meanwhile, kudos for not actively causing them harm against all available evidence in the trial-and-error process of raising kids.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fixed it for you.

That's disingenuous of you, Credo. If science is telling parents what the risks are of certain choices they make, the argument that "there is still a lot of other stuff we can't predict so therefore I'll still do the stuff science says is risky" is even more fucking lame than what I posted.

That is also, however, disingenuous of you, hylidae. The science presented said that spanking your child with a belt or a paddle once a month over a period of three years increases the risk of negative outcomes. Which I suspect nearly everyone in this thread who is not categorically anti-spanking will heartily agree constitutes child abuse!

 

[rousseau]

I have. That made him explain it to the one-and-a-half year olds, to the point where it was almost embarassing how bossy he was.

Have you actually attempted to explain why grabbing toys off a shelf and throwing them at other shoppers and then having a complete unbridled meltdown for the next 30 minutes is not okay to a four year old?

I haven't had to.

I suggest you give that a go and get back to me on how well that worked out for you, and how well they listened to you. Maybe by the time they hit five they've begun to listen to you and actually comprehend the meaning of what you're saying... but right now I strongly suspect that you've not spent any time around toddlers at all.

I have barely skimmed rousseau's post -- like other parents, I don't take too well to parenting advice from people without kids -- but if your objections are the best that can be said against them, He probably isn't all that far off base.

What I presented isn't really even parenting advice, it's basic human psychology. That's the issue: people don't understand basic human psychology so they resort to spanking.