• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Discipline for children

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.
Well I'm happy for you that you have a kid who is so precocious as to be able to understand such reasoning at such a young age, and who seems to have never experienced a full-fledged middle of the store meltdown. I applaud that you may never have to spank your child. I do, however, ask that you recognize that not all children are like your child, and no amount of patient explaining will necessarily make them so. Until you've actually dealt with the full on meltdown, I suggest you reserve judgement.
 
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?

For the 0-5 range I said that you should *start the habit* of explaining things, not expect that it's going to fix everything. Kids at that age are of small enough comprehension that you need to be around them at all times, and stop them from danger before it happens. Once their language skills are greater, start discussions.

Loving and reasoning aren't going to work every time but a) they are going to be more effective, more of the time b) they are going to foster a more positive relationship between you and your child and c) you're not potentially causing your kid psychological damage, which is the whole point of why we're saying you shouldn't do that

As for spending time around children, I sincerely don't think that kids know they're committing bad behavior almost all of the time. In reality, children are barely conscious until their pre-teens, teens, let alone having the capacity to make abstract thoughts about whether or not they should do something. At that point you have two options: slowly teach them right from wrong, or make them scared of you.
 
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.
No I don't. I might at best need to show that excessive and abusive levels of time-outs (that normal people would consider forced isolationism and neglect) or that abusive levels of "patient reasoning" (which normal people might consider brainwashing or mental abuse) have the potential to cause damage. The science presented so far shows only that repeated abusive spankings every month with a belt or paddle over the course of three or more years (in other words, physical abuse) risk damage. Which I suspect we all already agree on. You (and others) falsely extending this to include any and all spankings does not then require that I must show anything other than that your example is absurd.

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.
Hopefully, I will never have to resort to spankings. But if I have a child that behaves like my spouse did? There's likely to be one or two spankings in their future. Same if they act like my sister did. If they act like me... then I'm likely to choose other options as I was a pretty well behaved child and I think my parents could have succeeded without spankings. I maintain that they did me no harm, but I also admit that they were likely unnecessary. Very effective and efficient, mind you, but unnecessary just the same - for me specifically.
 
I haven't had to.
Well I'm happy for you that you have a kid who is so precocious as to be able to understand such reasoning at such a young age, and who seems to have never experienced a full-fledged middle of the store meltdown. I applaud that you may never have to spank your child. I do, however, ask that you recognize that not all children are like your child, and no amount of patient explaining will necessarily make them so. Until you've actually dealt with the full on meltdown, I suggest you reserve judgement.

Translate: We're supposed to accept your anecdotal evidence but you're not going to accept my anecdotal evidence.

How's that fair?
 
Well I'm happy for you that you have a kid who is so precocious as to be able to understand such reasoning at such a young age, and who seems to have never experienced a full-fledged middle of the store meltdown. I applaud that you may never have to spank your child. I do, however, ask that you recognize that not all children are like your child, and no amount of patient explaining will necessarily make them so. Until you've actually dealt with the full on meltdown, I suggest you reserve judgement.

Translate: We're supposed to accept your anecdotal evidence but you're not going to accept my anecdotal evidence.

How's that fair?

I did not reject your anecdotal evidence, Jokodo. I merely pointed out that your experience does not encompass the totality of all possible experiences.
 
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!

Really? A spanking advocate thinks one spanking a month constitutes child abuse? YOU might, but I don't think that is a common view. And the article said "frequently" with paddles, although I don't know why getting hit with hands might seem better to you that you would leave it out. Do you think hands can't do as much damage?

Anyway, whatever lines the authors wanted to draw, hitting children reduces gray matter, period. No matter how small that reduction or how tiny the effect on the nervous system as a whole, why would you advocate risking it?

Emily, tell me what is the maximum level of corporal punishment needed to avoid the risks discussed in the articles?

I used to spank my daughter. She's a fine human being now, although she does struggle a little bit with depression and stress, which may or may not have anything to do with the few spankings she received. (Considering all the shit her father and I *could have* hoisted upon her, I think she probably dodged a lot of bullets in that respect.) If I could do it over, I would not hit her, whether or not that choice turned out to later make a difference for her. Knowing what I know now, I would not risk it.

I'm not completely sure about why this is such a controversial view except that a lot of people want to defend their parents and defend the beliefs they already hold. Fuck, if I can question this and change my mind, anyone can.
 
Translate: We're supposed to accept your anecdotal evidence but you're not going to accept my anecdotal evidence.

How's that fair?

I did not reject your anecdotal evidence, Jokodo. I merely pointed out that your experience does not encompass the totality of all possible experiences.

Neither does yours. Just because you didn't sustain lasting damage from "light" physical punishment doesn't mean that other children don't, and you won't know until it's too late.
 
You have physically hurt your children as a form of punishment. You've said so in this thread. Using slightly different words that describe the same thing doesn't make a strawman.
No, I have not.

I have caused my children pain as a form of discipline, and as a teaching aid. I don't believe in punishment. Punishment is simply vengeance by another name.
 
You have physically hurt your children as a form of punishment. You've said so in this thread. Using slightly different words that describe the same thing doesn't make a strawman.
No, I have not.

I have caused my children pain as a form of discipline, and as a teaching aid. I don't believe in punishment. Punishment is simply vengeance by another name.

I understand that you don't like the word, but facts are facts.
 
Here is my take on it.

If you spank your kids and they grow up and feel abused and refuse to care for you when you get old, that is their right and perogative.

If they felt no harm was done by it and want a relationship with the parent, that is wonderful too.

It is and should be the then grown child's right to decide whether they were abused or not, and whether to carry on a relationship and care for a parent later in life.
 
More anecdotal evidence. This is fun.
 
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.

Come on, hylidae - there is ZERO evidence, because this subject has never been honestly studied. I've said this many times already. You wouldn't trust a study on abortion that used the phrase "baby killer" to refer to abortionists, would you? Why should anyone seeking an honest study on spanking read anything that contains similarly loaded phrases?

Every study I've ever read that supposedly addresses spanking actually addresses child abuse, and - like every kneejerk "spanking is ebil" extremist on this thread - refuses to allow the difference.
 
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.

Come on, hylidae - there is ZERO evidence, because this subject has never been honestly studied. I've said this many times already. You wouldn't trust a study on abortion that used the phrase "baby killer" to refer to abortionists, would you? Why should anyone seeking an honest study on spanking read anything that contains similarly loaded phrases?

Every study I've ever read that supposedly addresses spanking actually addresses child abuse, and - like every kneejerk "spanking is ebil" extremist on this thread - refuses to allow the difference.

Thank you. I asked Emily and I'll ask you, too. What is the maximum level of corporal punishment a parent should adhere to in order to ensure the known risks are avoided?
 
Technically spanking is not really discipline, it's punishment. Discipline is "to teach". Spanking is only "teaching" to be afraid and distrustful of adults.

Nonsense. When a puppy is smacked with a rolled-up newspaper for piddling on the floor, that's called "training." It's not punishment, it's teaching. Young animals of all species can be taught pretty much the same way.

It's not good training. Having raised both kids and dogs, I can affirm that positive reinforcement is a better training tool than punishment. Even and actually, especially when it comes to house training puppies.

I've known people who raised or 'raised' puppies and felt themselves to be quite expert in the practice, utilizing all sorts of harsh punishment, including the newspaper on the nose. They were shocked when they noticed my pretty well behaved dogs, raised by me and my husband (and kids) without any physical punishment, although I will cop to an occasional shout which really only confused the dogs. They knew I was angry but were not able to correlate my anger with their misbehavior.

Of course, dogs are not the same as children, although the 'training' process for young children and puppies is much more similar than I realized until I raised puppies after my children were school age and out of that 'puppy' stage themselves.

Certainly, some breeds of dogs present different challenges as certain behaviors (herding, pointing birds, retrieving, etc.) have been bred into them for generations and within breeds, dogs are as individual as humans are. Likewise, some children are very easy to raise and others are more challenging. It is pretty easy for a parent who has an easy child to believe that their child is well behaved and likeable because the parents are so skilled at parenting. That gets blown all to hell when another child who is not so easy and indeed, quite challenging comes along. I may be speaking from personal experience and such scenarios may bear an uncanny resemblance to my own experiences as a parent and as a dog owner.

In child rearing and in puppy rearing, it is important to be observant about what the individual child or animal is like, what motivates each, what their preferences are, what their limitations and strengths are. One should always strive to establish a routine and practices which best ensure opportunities for success as well as opportunities for growth. Some examples of recognizing individual preferences and limitations: I have children who are very extroverted and social. From a very early age, removing them from any social interaction, whether it was playing on the playground, or with siblings, or actual grounding when they were older was absolutely the worst punishment I could mete out. It was pretty hard on the rest of the family who had to endure the sentence as well. I also have children who are fairly introverted: ground them and they were happy as clams sitting on their beds, reading a good book. A more effective punishment was to hand out extra chores of the kind they did not care for, or to insist that they stay in the kitchen and help prepare a meal and clean up instead of retreating to their bedrooms and books. And so on. Some dogs are very food driven and will do anything for the tiniest bit of treat. Others are much more motivated by play. If you want to get the most out of a training session, you need to know what motivates your dog. Or kid.

As a child I was spanked, although I don't really remember it much. I do remember by the time I was in upper elementary school and a younger sibling was going to be spanked, that I thought it was very, very wrong to hit my sibling, although frankly they were being punished for an offense against me. I could understand and comprehend a quick swat to a bottom of a small child to immediately grab attention and indicate something was wrong. Note I am saying: I understood it, not that I thought it was the best thing in the world to do. My father was firmly convinced that respect and obedience were founded in fear. What motivated me was fear of losing my father's approval, not fear of being hit. That said, I know my father was punished quite severely--my grandfather beat him on occasion. I also know my father was probably one of those more 'challenging' kinds of kids: very much a thrill seeking, authority challenging, adventurous, mischievous child who would have been a challenge even to a parent who wasn't as overwhelmed with a chronically ill spouse, trying to keep his family from starving to death (literally. It was the depression.)as was my grandfather.

On rare occasions, I admit that I did spank my children, a couple of times. Once was when one of them dashed into a parking lot, as a pure reflex action on my part. I wish I had not spanked him--a couple of swats on his bottom-- and wished it at the time. I wish it even more strongly now. But I did do it. It is not easy to break patterns you were raised with. My kids have grown up to be kind, loving, competent adults who are not prone to violence or low self esteem. It is possible to make mistakes as a parent and have the kids still survive and be good kids.

What I see now with (some) parents is the parents refusing to actually discipline their children. I don't mean spanking or time outs, even. I mean, plenty of parents see no reason to stop little Hunter from kicking the back of someone's seat or running around a restaurant or smashing their ice cream cone where ever little Hunter chooses. They also see no reason to curtail whatever errands or activities the adult wishes to engage in simply because Hunter needs a nap or a meal or to be home because Hunter's nose is running lots of green snot and Hunter is clearly past his or her possible endurance for a marathon shopping event at the mall or TGIFridays or whatever. The parental attitude seems to be (and has actually been stated to me by younger parents of my acquaintance): " why should I be inconvenienced because little Hunter won't behave?" Of course that begs the question: Why should the world be inconvenienced because you cannot be bothered to actually raise your own child? Or more seriously: How will little Hunter learn to get along in the world if s/he has no idea of limits and expectations and that kicking the back of someone's seat is almost certain to make them dislike you?
 
Spanking, whether you call it loving or not, affects the nervous system and gray matter, making kids dumber in effect, and is linked to higher aggression and less self control in children as well as to the tendency for anxiety, depression, addiction, etc., later on through life

I know you believe this to be true, but I have never seen a single honest study on the issue. Every study I've ever seen contains loaded words like "beating" and "hitting," and equates them with spanking. Reading such a thing in a supposedly scientific study is as jarring as seeing the words "unborn baby," "killing," and "murder" in a supposedly scientific study of abortion. When I see this language, I know already that no actual science has been applied.

Abusing children is definitely harmful in all the ways you list. But I've never seen a cogent or rational argument which concludes that all spanking is abusive. In fact, I've never seen any attempt to study conscious spanking as opposed to unconscious abuse. All the studies in the area appear to begin with the unsupported premise that all spanking is abuse.
I'm honestly confused. How do you define spanking?
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that spanking advocates are not fully articulating something. I could be wrong, and this is not a judgment about any users here, but something not overtly discussed in this thread is the relationship between the very human, nebulous, and complex world of family and social dynamics and what we might make a matter of law, or of at least widespread social acceptance, implying punishment of parents in whatever cases we each think is over the line. I don't think anyone is fully comfortable with that outside of severe abuse cases.

The reality is that raising children is trial-and-error, messy, fraught with pitfalls and cultural pressures, and in spite of the plethora of books from experts as well as pseudoscientists and flat-out nutjobs, NO ONE actually has a manual for it.

A good part of the problems of children suffering in our various societies has more to do with external pressures and social constructs than with a parent's individual, first-hand, in-the-moment experiences with their own children.

There ARE times and there WILL BE many more times that even the most pacifist parents might lose patience and give a whack on the thigh or bottom, or grab an arm with undue force.

I think the real conflict here is less our differing views on spanking and more our struggle with "what to forbid" vs. a compassionate understanding that no parent is going to be the perfect paragon of their own ideals (much less anyone else's), that parenting is stressful, that parents are at the mercy of social pressures as well as personal factors that no one can fully know or predict.

We don't want to excuse abuse, but we also don't want to punish parents for being human. There is no perfect ideal for parenting. It's a crazy, unpredictable endeavor and no two families or children are alike, much less homogeneous across a society.

I guess I would say let's first be kind to kids AND parents, and continue the conversation.
 
Last edited:
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.
I think the question should be can anyone show evidence that hitting children actually does any good FOR THE CHILD? Every "rationalization" I've seen benefits the parent, not the child. By stopping a behavior that is annoying or unruly to the parent. Or not adhering to the parents wishes or wants. I'm not seeing any examples of benefits to the CHILD.
 
Back
Top Bottom