Discipline for children

[prideandfall]

Okay, what about restraining patients in a hospital who are becoming unruly. Or restraining people who are intent on hurting one another. They know the rules. They have broken the rules and adults are using restraint against adults to show them that what they are doing is incorrect. Is it wrong when police use tasers? (Or am I opening up a hole other can of worms there?)

asked and answered, a couple of times now - but it's a long thread so i don't expect you to have caught every single post.

reasonable physical man-handling (for lack of a better term) of people who can't be reasoned with is both completely fine, and also has equivalent circumstances outside of children where the same force is used - i've mentioned guards handling prisoners in jail, or dealing with a drunk and belligerent person, or for example being rough with someone to save them from something, such as shoving someone out of the way of a car.

if there's an equivalent action you can take to an adult, then there's no comparison - because we're not talking about needing to physically restrain or reposition someone, we're talking about using physical violence against a person.

Not one person on this thread advocates the use of violence in the extreme.

i never said anyone did - but you can try and quantify it all you want, the end result is still that using physical violence against children.

What some of us are advocating is the use of a smack on the tuchas to reinforce the thought in the child that okay - if I do this - I get a consequence I do not like. Much the same way an electric fence stops animals and prisoners in jail from going beyond the boundaries. A small jolt to remind them to stay where they have been told to.

i know what you're advocating. what you don't seem to get is that what you're advocating battery.

I am also pretty certain that most people on this thread who do advocate the use of a smack on the tuchas do so as a last resort - after all the other methods of time out, warnings etc have been exhausted. I know that if I was fortunate enough to have children, that is how I would do it. Use it as a step in a discipline program - not as the be all and end all.

okay, where exactly in the chain of events you resort to physical violence isn't really the point.

 

[Jokodo]

I understand that you don't like the word, but facts are facts.

Bullshit.

You are claiming to have the magical ability to see my motives. The difference between discipline and vengeance (aka punishment) is precisely that: a question of motive.

The equivalence between vengeance and punishment is in your head alone.

punishment
/ˈpʌnɪʃmənt/
noun
1. a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence
2. the act of punishing or state of being punished
3. (informal) rough treatment
4. (psychol) any aversive stimulus administered to an organism as part of training
(Collins English Dictionary via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment)

Or look at it from the opposite angle: The very first definition of discipline (verb) at Merriam Webster (similar phrasing in other dictionaries):

Full Definition of DISCIPLINE

transitive verb
1: to punish or penalize for the sake of enforcing obedience and perfecting moral character

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discipline?show=0&t=1413362849

Your motives, as stated, are very much compatible with the meaning of the word "punishment" as defined in dictionaries.

Now that that's out of the way, can you stop accusing people of strawmanning you because they use words you don't like but that describe the same thing and start answering questions?

 

[Jokodo]

Source?

I've seen studies which show that physical abuse does this. But equating spanking with abuse is like equating a bb-gun with a howitzer, or pot-heads with meth-heads. The biggest problem I see with spanking (and with conversations about spanking) is that nobody bothers to define terms. So we end up with statements like 'all spanking is abuse," which are about as helpful and thoughtful as statements like "all sexual intercourse is rape."

This kind of black-and-white moralizing has two very detrimental effects. First, it discourages thoughtful, nuanced conversation on the subject. Secondly, and most damaging, it allows sadistic abusive assholes to simply dismiss all objections to corporal punishment as extremist, pointless ranting. So the abusers go right on beating children with switches, belts, and fists, secure in their conviction that "it's just a spanking."

If the anti-spanking crowd wants their voice heard. they're going to need to acknowledge that some forms of loving and self-aware corporal punishment might, at the very least, do no lasting harm. Otherwise these conversations end up being about as productive as having a YEC-ist plug his ears and chant "la la la I can't hear you!" in a scientific discussion about the age and scope of the Universe.

I am happy to help on defining the terms. You are correct. Not ALL spanking is abuse. Spanking between two consenting adults would not be abuse.

Everything else is.

Technically incorrect: It doesn't have to be between two adults. If someone gets the joy out of being spanked by several people simultaneously, there's nothing wrong with that either. But I agree with your larger point and have tried to make it myself earlier in the thread. It wasn't picked up.

 

[RavenSky]

In Norway spanking is against the law in all forms, I'm glad that this is the case.

And it is obvious that Norway is filled with people the rest of the world should be afraid of (per the cartoon in the OP). Forget ISIS, it's you non-spanked guys from Norway who are the real terrorists!

 

[Rhea]

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.

One thing I am curious about (and I hope some people can answer not in passion because I'm genuinely curious) is the decision to draw a line between spanking and any of the mean words. The position that spanking is not hitting because it is just spanking and is not the same.

I'm not a passionate anti-spanker, but I do have the same puzzlement over it as I have over religion. So here are my questions that I would like the okay-with-spanking posters to illuminate for me if they would:

1. If spanking is clearly different than hitting to both you and the child - i.e. it doesn't hurt - (is that true by the way? Is that how you tell the difference?) how did you establish that the spanking was a message of behavior change to the child? How did your child come to know that a "swat" was something to avoid?
3. What explanation do you give to the child you are spanking that teaches them it is your tool and they are not allowed to use it on their little brother? And why is that explanation easier to give than an explanation of what they did wrong in the first place?

I was spanked as a child, and when it didn't "work" it was escalated until it ostensibly did. From hands, thence to hair brushes, thence ping pong paddles, then wooden spoons and finally a two-by-four. And yeah, my siblings and I still call the two-by-four incidents "spankings" since that's what we were taught to believe the "just" were.

I was all set to spank my own children but my husband objected and I agreed to try. As I worked through the ways to avoid it, it became more and more clear to me that it wasn't going to have been terribly effective anyway, and the undoing of the message that it is okay making a rapid arm movement connecting with other people's bodies to send a message would be ultimately more difficult than making blanket statements, "rapid arm movement that connects to other people's bodies with the intent to cause displeasure or annoyance to get them to act as you wish" is just never okay in the first place.

And that teaching without spanking was actually easier than teaching with spanking anyway. With spanking I would have to spank the lesson and then un-teach the spanking lesson. The other way, I only had to teach the lesson.

And here are some of the ways that were effective for us and our extremely active (some say autistic for one of them, but that is in dispute and is less and less in evidence as the years go by,) curious, rambunctious children.

Biting: age 8 mo - separate from others. Say over and over, "but you can't go back there while you bite" and act again and again, a big dramatic attempt to bite, and being pulled away, a big dramatic closed mouth and being brought close. Also "yes bite this duck, no biting people. Yes bite the duck, no biting people" and have for him always the things that he can yes-bite. When the mouth opens, shove the duck in it.

Running in street: (really rare given where we live but we practiced anyway) repeated games of red-light, green-light where they got to learn that stopping on command could be fun and in their own interest! And practice it until it is habit. Who can stop the fastest? RED LIGHT! and they stop every time. They are smart enough for this as soon as they can walk.

Shouting in a store or anywhere - stand in front looking at them, with your hands up and ask, "what are you thinking will happen when you do that?" and respond not that they won't get their way, but they simply can't and there's nothing parent can even do. "How can I buy cookies when we haven't had lunch yet?"

General discipline - teach them language and words to help communicate their needs so there is no need to tantrum. Simple, short, go-to phrases that are kid friendly that work for them.

These are not magic, and they are only a few examples, but there are many books on these subjects from which I gleaned hundreds of techniques - almost all of them based on successful communication with children who are not yet good at it but want to be. Almost every book on autism that I read struck me as something that all those parents of "normal" kids needed to read and fast! because they really are studies of how the child's brain works and once you are willing to learn their language and speak it, you no longer have a poor communicating child.

(reminds me of that joke, "so you think you're smarter than your dog? How many human words does she know? And how many dog words do you know?")

I feel that when I see parents frustrated with children that the parents seem to want to control better than they are right then, that the techniques I used to get inside my child's head and speak from there are exactly the tools that would help them.

(And spanking was never in my child's head.)

I have seen children try to spank other children, especially smaller ones; children who come from spanking families. Perhaps because they have been taught that the way to change other people's direction is to rapidly swing your arm at them and try to connect with force.

I have seen kids who were not spanked try to stand and reason with other children.

 

[Rhea]

It stops unacceptable behavior, and reduces the likelihood of a repeat performance.

ETA: For the record, I've already said it's not something I suggest as a "first line" approach, but only as a "last line" approach. But if all else has failed, then by all means, stop the unacceptable behavior.

No, for adults, like my mother with cyclical dementia, it’s not even a last line of approach. When she tries to leave the house it is against the law for me to spank her to get her to stop it.

Even when you have adults who are clearly not capable of reason, it's still part of our social conditioning that we don't spank other adults.

No, it’s the law, not a “social conditioning.” It is against the law for me to spank my elderly mother because she won’t refrain from trying to carry hot soup with her walker.

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".

My kid was one of these. One day I took everything he had and put it in “impound” (what we did when he had to face being undistracted so he could think and calm) I gave him nothing but a pencil and paper all day Darned if that kid didn’t play with that stupid pencil and paper all day cheerfully. Amazed me. But… he played with that pencil and paper INSTEAD OF what he was doing wrong before. So we both won. I got the behavior stopped, he got himself redirected and stopped doing the behavior.

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."

Is this a thing? One or two spankings and the child never again does anything needing discipline?

 

[Davka]

It's like watching a roomful of adolescent males lose all capacity for reason when a pretty girl walks in. Are none of you capable of rational discussion on this issue, while avoiding basic logical fallacies?

And you wonder why you are getting such a hostile reaction in this thread? For all your claims of wanting to have a rational discussion on this topic, you are the person who just went all nasty emotional nasty right there.

It's called a "reaction." After umpty-zillion posts calling me a child abuser, I sort of lost patience. Kind of like when parents who refuse to actually discipline end up losing patience with their kids, y'know?

 

[Rhea]

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.

I disagree. Rousseau has said things that match what I've done. And yes, I have two kids (now 13 and 15). I would not dismiss his ideas, because they are the same that I have used with great success.

My kids may have screamed once or twice in a store and not more than that. I did not use spanking to accomplish it. So spanking is not a tool "needed" for the screaming child.

I have experienced that they can and do reason - at their age appropriate level - and when one takes the time to get inside their heads, one can respond in ways that they understand and agree to. Whether they are 6 weeks or 6 years. Or 14. Including understanding their triggers and avoiding them, like the shockingly predictable "hangry meltdown" that requires getting in their heads/stomachs and making sure you feed them before you shop. And "as a last resort' there is singing and acting goofy. It is pretty hard for a child to throw a tantrum when mummy is making cereal boxes talk.

 

[Playball40]

You haven't looked very hard. You can get any textbook on child development and find what you seek. What you won't find is any positive justification for spanking as a discipline tool. (admit it, that is what you really want)

Funny, the place I learned the difference between spanking and child abuse was a child development book. Not a textbook, but that's hardly relevant, as anyone remotely associated with the selection process for textbooks can tell you.

I don't need a textbook to tell me that spanking works. I also don't need some stranger on the Internet to tell me what I think, or what I "really want."

Way to not respond to what was said. I never said spanking automatically equates to child abuse. However, spanking, as a form of punishment is ineffective, not recommended and has been shown to be detrimental to children. But you go on defending something that wasn't said.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How many kids have you raised?

When you're running as fast as you can just to stay in place, anything that makes your life easier benefits both you and your kids. In other words, "if Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

So yeah, those benefits to the parents ARE benefits to the kids.

I've raised six children. And children, by their very nature do NOT make your life "easier". Happier perhaps, but not easier.

 

[Davka]

I don't think there's such a thing as a "level of punishment" that's acceptable. Punishment is all about the old eye-for-an-eye system of vengeance. It's the root cause of child abuse.

I'm convinced that the difference is essential to understanding and studying this issue. Ideally, such studies would be done dispassionately, in a lab, but that would itself be a form of cruelty. So all we have to go by at this point is the fairly obvious fact that "punishment" is bad for kids.

I don't think it's the act of delivering a swat to a child's bottom which causes damage, I believe it is the spirit in which it is done. Far too many parents derive satisfaction from exacting vengeance. In fact, I'm certain that a spiteful, bullying parent - who never raised a hand against their child but instead used words to bully them with - would do serious and irreparable harm, while a loving parent who used spanking to teach would do none.

I've just been in my old notes looking for references for the studies you seek, but can't find the developmental stuff. The fact is, that the studies have been done. They are done longitudinally, observationally and without spanking any children in labs.

Yeah, I was being a smartass with the line about labs, that would be awful. But I disagree that the studies I seek have been done. To perform such studies, the researchers would have to create a protocol for distinguishing abusive punishment from instructive, measured discipline. Since there appear to be no researchers who have the courage to even admit that such a distinction might be made, every study I've seen is useless. These studies are like claiming to study the physical and emotional harm done by traffic accidents, while refusing to acknowledge any difference between a parking-lot paint-trading scrape and a 50-car pileup. The results would be meaningless.

The problem is that the issue is not treated as a scientific one - it's become primarily political. And anyone with a passing understanding of academia and politics knows that once a certain train of thought has become politically incorrect, any attempt to follow up on that train of thought will be squelched and the perpetrator of political incorrectness will be sanctioned, possibly even fired. Take a look at the history of attitudes towards the LGBT community for a classic example: back in the '60s and '70s, researchers were soundly "punished" for daring to suggest that homosexuality might not be a mental illness. This is what happens when an issue becomes political in academia: all true research stops, and any studies on the subject will end up parroting the party line, or they won't be published.

I agree with your last sentence with the caveat that the last word should be "less".

OK, I'm willing to concede that, as long as the "less harm" applies to all loving parents, regardless of the methods they may employ in raising their children. IOW, I don't think it's possible to raise a child with zero trauma or emotional baggage, no matter what. Flawed, damaged human beings are not capable of perfection, and we are ALL flawed and damaged to some extent.

 

[Rhea]

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 have been volunteering for years at toddler and elementary and middle and now high schools. I have had children over at my house who have never been able to handle other people's houses. I have had parents of "difficult" children ask me, "how the hell did you do that for my child!?" How did you get them to wear a seat belt? How did you get them to brush their teeth? How the hell did you get them to eat spinach?

I don't feel like I'm some magical wonder-mom. I don't consider myself one. I feel like the things that I do are things anyone could do, if they learned the language of children. When someone who speaks Russian is anxious, you will not calm them by shouting at them in French. If you want to be "right" keep shouting in French. If you want to be effective, learn some Russian.

I said I had one maybe two in-store meltdowns in all of toddlerhood for two kids. I said how I tried to help the kids avoid or get out of a building meltdown. And it wasn't discipline, not once. It was understanding and communication. The kids don't realize they are doing anything wrong - they really don't. They need an anchor, a friend and a helping hand with their emotions.


I am not a wonder-mom. And someone who doesn't do this is not a bad mom/dad. It's just some experience on ways that have worked on my children, the children at school and other children when the inevitable childhood stuff goes haywire in their brains. It is a suggestion that spanking and "discipline" is not the thing that will be most effective at the parenting problems.

Rousseau is right that this is less about parenting than psychology. And marketing, lol. You get them to want to do it. You get them into the mood that allows them to see the end. And then they reach out for the brass ring on their own.

 

[Playball40]

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.

The example above in my (far too long) post: My kid, at age 2, dashed into a parking lot adjacent to the playground where he and a group of other kids were playing, with parents nearby, chatting, watching. He was some small distance from me, walking along with his friend when a ball from some other children playing rolled into the parking lot. My kid followed the ball. I dashed to pull him out of the parking lot, which was adjacent to the sidewalk bordering the playground, and filled with cars, including one vehicle which was being driven into the parking lot where the ball rolled. I scooped him up and gave him a quick couple of swats on his bottom and sternly told him to NEVER go into the parking lot without holding an adult hand again. It was pure reflex on my part: dashing, swatting on the butt, no actual thought process involved. After he had to stick quite close to me.....for the rest of the hour before we went in for the normal bedtime routine of bath, story, tuck in and cuddles, etc.

He never did dash into the parking lot or street again. Now, I wish I had had the presence of mind to not smack my kid on the butt at the time, but I didn't have and I did smack his butt and he never again dashed into the parking lot or street. Was it because of the smack on the butt? Was it because of my stern, obviously upset voice? Was I just lucky? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I am certain that there are others who could have accomplished the same result without swatting bottoms. I am certain I could have if I had not acted out of pure reflex.

My kid certainly continued playing in the same playground, with the same kids and with the same chatting, watching, also playing parents and yes, most of the time, he was beyond my physical reach. ALL of the parents on the playground that day were especially vigilant for a bit but I would lie if I pretended we didn't also relax our vigilance after a while. Because we were all human.

I don't think smacking or hitting is a good form of discipline or punishment. I also don't think that people should be crucified if they are imperfect in their child rearing practices.

That exact same thing happened to me when my oldest was two. He went dashing out between two cars and another car was coming around the corner. It was like slow motion. And I did the same thing, I actually screamed, swatted him on the butt, then hugged him (with tears in my eyes) all the while telling him not to run out into the street. Yes, his swats were EXTREMELY emotionally based and I doubt it had any real effect on him running in the street. I'm guessing my fear was the biggest deterrent. Still, even after that incident, I wasn't going to leave my two year old anywhere he could dash in the street again as two year olds have very short attention spans and are extremely impulsive. The error was on MY part all the way around and I definitely learned from it.

 

[Rhea]

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.

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.

Hang on... do _you_ have kids? I thought you did from your first comment, but then I was thrown off balance by the second...

I understand the impulse to stare disdainfully at non-parents offering advice, but I've found it's better to reserve the disdain for people passing judgement rather than for those offering advice. I never know where the best advice might come from. That phrase that speaks my kids' language and gives us all a chance to communicate.

For parenting books, as I mentioned before, I would recommend Autism Spectrum parenting books for ANY parent. They are awesome.

 

[Rhea]

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

Actually, it is a quite effective deterrent. Claiming otherwise simply exposes your lack of experience in the area.

I disagree. I do not find it an effective deterrent. Kind of like cats. if you smack them for jumping on the counter they learn not to jump on the counter while you're there.

 

[Playball40]

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.

One thing I am curious about (and I hope some people can answer not in passion because I'm genuinely curious) is the decision to draw a line between spanking and any of the mean words. The position that spanking is not hitting because it is just spanking and is not the same.

I'm not a passionate anti-spanker, but I do have the same puzzlement over it as I have over religion. So here are my questions that I would like the okay-with-spanking posters to illuminate for me if they would:

1. If spanking is clearly different than hitting to both you and the child - i.e. it doesn't hurt - (is that true by the way? Is that how you tell the difference?) how did you establish that the spanking was a message of behavior change to the child? How did your child come to know that a "swat" was something to avoid?
3. What explanation do you give to the child you are spanking that teaches them it is your tool and they are not allowed to use it on their little brother? And why is that explanation easier to give than an explanation of what they did wrong in the first place?

I was spanked as a child, and when it didn't "work" it was escalated until it ostensibly did. From hands, thence to hair brushes, thence ping pong paddles, then wooden spoons and finally a two-by-four. And yeah, my siblings and I still call the two-by-four incidents "spankings" since that's what we were taught to believe the "just" were.

I was all set to spank my own children but my husband objected and I agreed to try. As I worked through the ways to avoid it, it became more and more clear to me that it wasn't going to have been terribly effective anyway, and the undoing of the message that it is okay making a rapid arm movement connecting with other people's bodies to send a message would be ultimately more difficult than making blanket statements, "rapid arm movement that connects to other people's bodies with the intent to cause displeasure or annoyance to get them to act as you wish" is just never okay in the first place.

And that teaching without spanking was actually easier than teaching with spanking anyway. With spanking I would have to spank the lesson and then un-teach the spanking lesson. The other way, I only had to teach the lesson.

And here are some of the ways that were effective for us and our extremely active (some say autistic for one of them, but that is in dispute and is less and less in evidence as the years go by,) curious, rambunctious children.

Biting: age 8 mo - separate from others. Say over and over, "but you can't go back there while you bite" and act again and again, a big dramatic attempt to bite, and being pulled away, a big dramatic closed mouth and being brought close. Also "yes bite this duck, no biting people. Yes bite the duck, no biting people" and have for him always the things that he can yes-bite. When the mouth opens, shove the duck in it.

Running in street: (really rare given where we live but we practiced anyway) repeated games of red-light, green-light where they got to learn that stopping on command could be fun and in their own interest! And practice it until it is habit. Who can stop the fastest? RED LIGHT! and they stop every time. They are smart enough for this as soon as they can walk.

Shouting in a store or anywhere - stand in front looking at them, with your hands up and ask, "what are you thinking will happen when you do that?" and respond not that they won't get their way, but they simply can't and there's nothing parent can even do. "How can I buy cookies when we haven't had lunch yet?"

General discipline - teach them language and words to help communicate their needs so there is no need to tantrum. Simple, short, go-to phrases that are kid friendly that work for them.

These are not magic, and they are only a few examples, but there are many books on these subjects from which I gleaned hundreds of techniques - almost all of them based on successful communication with children who are not yet good at it but want to be. Almost every book on autism that I read struck me as something that all those parents of "normal" kids needed to read and fast! because they really are studies of how the child's brain works and once you are willing to learn their language and speak it, you no longer have a poor communicating child.

(reminds me of that joke, "so you think you're smarter than your dog? How many human words does she know? And how many dog words do you know?")

I feel that when I see parents frustrated with children that the parents seem to want to control better than they are right then, that the techniques I used to get inside my child's head and speak from there are exactly the tools that would help them.

(And spanking was never in my child's head.)

I have seen children try to spank other children, especially smaller ones; children who come from spanking families. Perhaps because they have been taught that the way to change other people's direction is to rapidly swing your arm at them and try to connect with force.

I have seen kids who were not spanked try to stand and reason with other children.

Interestingly babies that age don't bite out of being mean or trying to inflict pain on another. So biting back is just silly. It's usually a combination of inability to communicate and teathing of all thing.

 

[Davka]

Funny, the place I learned the difference between spanking and child abuse was a child development book. Not a textbook, but that's hardly relevant, as anyone remotely associated with the selection process for textbooks can tell you.

I don't need a textbook to tell me that spanking works. I also don't need some stranger on the Internet to tell me what I think, or what I "really want."

Way to not respond to what was said.

Excuse me? You told me i could find "what I seek" in "any child-development textbook." I responded.

I never said spanking automatically equates to child abuse.

Perhaps not, but many others in this thread have.

However, spanking, as a form of punishment is ineffective, not recommended and has been shown to be detrimental to children.

Nonsense. If spanking were ineffective, it would not be used by loving, thoughtful parents. But it is - unless you are willing to claim that all parents who spank are neither loving nor thoughtful.

You see, just because some child development textbook makes a claim, that does not mean it's right. 50-60 years ago, it was an accepted fact (and included in child development textbooks) that holding and comforting children was terrible for them. Following one's maternal instincts was "coddling," and would result in children growing up to be needy, undeveloped adults. This is why Dr. Spock's book was so revolutionary - he actually dared to claim that loving and comforting children was beneficial!

If a textbook told me that cutting firewood with a chainsaw was ineffective, not recommended, and shown to be detrimental to the building of fires, I would ignore it. Why? Because my own experience shows it to be nonsense. The pile of firewood next to the warm, crackling fire in the stove is a far more compelling argument than all the yammering "experts" in the world. And the same goes for child-rearing. I know for an unassailable fact that spanking works, because I've seen it work. And I am convinced that although abuse is ineffective and harmful, non-abusive use of corrective force is not.

When you find a study with the balls to admit that non-abusive spanking is a real thing, let me know. Until then, I'll be ignoring the "consensus" as just as irrelevant as those previous "scientific" studies showing that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that hugging your son will make him into a dependent pansy of a man.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is a quite effective deterrent. Claiming otherwise simply exposes your lack of experience in the area.

I disagree. I do not find it an effective deterrent. Kind of like cats. if you smack them for jumping on the counter they learn not to jump on the counter while you're there.

Disagree all you like; it worked for me. That's a more powerful argument in my mind than all the studies in the world.

 

[Davka]

And now, my friends, I must bid you once more a fond farewell. I have managed to do myself harm by staying in this thread and typing as long as I have. Repetitive-motion injury is a bitch.

The pain, however, has been most effective at limiting my time on the computer. Nothing like getting burned to learn not to play with fire. Or getting spanked to learn not to play with Daddy's power tools.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think it's the act of delivering a swat to a child's bottom which causes damage, I believe it is the spirit in which it is done.

This made me think of the participation awards question. It's not the participation awards, it's the spirit in which it is done that provides the incredible lift and inclusion.

 

[Playball40]

Way to not respond to what was said.

Excuse me? You told me i could find "what I seek" in "any child-development textbook." I responded.

I never said spanking automatically equates to child abuse.

Perhaps not, but many others in this thread have.

However, spanking, as a form of punishment is ineffective, not recommended and has been shown to be detrimental to children.

Nonsense. If spanking were ineffective, it would not be used by loving, thoughtful parents. But it is - unless you are willing to claim that all parents who spank are neither loving nor thoughtful.

You see, just because some child development textbook makes a claim, that does not mean it's right. 50-60 years ago, it was an accepted fact (and included in child development textbooks) that holding and comforting children was terrible for them. Following one's maternal instincts was "coddling," and would result in children growing up to be needy, undeveloped adults. This is why Dr. Spock's book was so revolutionary - he actually dared to claim that loving and comforting children was beneficial!

If a textbook told me that cutting firewood with a chainsaw was ineffective, not recommended, and shown to be detrimental to the building of fires, I would ignore it. Why? Because my own experience shows it to be nonsense. The pile of firewood next to the warm, crackling fire in the stove is a far more compelling argument than all the yammering "experts" in the world. And the same goes for child-rearing. I know for an unassailable fact that spanking works, because I've seen it work. And I am convinced that although abuse is ineffective and harmful, non-abusive use of corrective force is not.

When you find a study with the balls to admit that non-abusive spanking is a real thing, let me know. Until then, I'll be ignoring the "consensus" as just as irrelevant as those previous "scientific" studies showing that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that hugging your son will make him into a dependent pansy of a man.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is a quite effective deterrent. Claiming otherwise simply exposes your lack of experience in the area.

I disagree. I do not find it an effective deterrent. Kind of like cats. if you smack them for jumping on the counter they learn not to jump on the counter while you're there.

Disagree all you like; it worked for me. That's a more powerful argument in my mind than all the studies in the world.

You're simply too emotionally charged to have a rational conversation. I have raised six children. Have an AA in early childhood development (before I changed my major) and also owned a child care center (20% of which catered to at-risk and disabled children) so I DO have both knowledge and experience on the subject. I, too, was the child of a spanker who "turned out fine" (although admittedly my self-esteem was non-existent until my late 20's).

Your comment of "disagree all you like; it worked for me" sound like someone saying climate change doesn't exist because it snowed today. I know you're better than that at doing the research.

I'm not judging you. I didn't judge my father either; however, as an adult I recognize the mistakes he made in his methods of discipline. I don't hate myself for occassionally spanking my oldest, although I do feel some guilt about it. I also feel some guilt about yelling (which can also be damaging and detrimental). I feel some guilt about being too impatient at times. I am far from a perfect parent (as most of us are), but it's only a benefit to look at our past behavior and try to change it. You're raising children days may be over, but I'm guessing there will be grandchildren in the mix (if not already). Do you really truly want your children to spank your grandchildren? Or do you want them to try and use the best, most effective methods of discipline, WITHOUT the potential for negative consequences to the child?

Come on Davka, some soul searching may be in order here. It's ok and doesn't make you an evil person.

 

[Rhea]

Bullshit.

You are claiming to have the magical ability to see my motives. The difference between discipline and vengeance (aka punishment) is precisely that: a question of motive.

The equivalence between vengeance and punishment is in your head alone.

punishment
/ˈpʌnɪʃmənt/
noun
1. a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence
2. the act of punishing or state of being punished
3. (informal) rough treatment
4. (psychol) any aversive stimulus administered to an organism as part of training
(Collins English Dictionary via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment)

Or look at it from the opposite angle: The very first definition of discipline (verb) at Merriam Webster (similar phrasing in other dictionaries):

Full Definition of DISCIPLINE

transitive verb
1: to punish or penalize for the sake of enforcing obedience and perfecting moral character

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discipline?show=0&t=1413362849

Your motives, as stated, are very much compatible with the meaning of the word "punishment" as defined in dictionaries.

Now that that's out of the way, can you stop accusing people of strawmanning you because they use words you don't like but that describe the same thing and start answering questions?

I think Davka has a point about the difference between discipline and punishment. I use it to control myself. I use "punishment" to mean making someone else feel bad in order to achieve some goal of teaching. I use "discipline" to mean taking steps to understand and control. I try to always stay away from "punishing" because I think it is completely couter-effective in that it teaches that there are times when making someone feel bad (or hurt) is justified. The punished person is most likely to latch onto that and dish it out rather than ever take the message to heart. So I avoid it liek the plague.

It's useful for me to have that distinction to judge my actions.