Discipline for children

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation Team.

 

[Jokodo]

Now there's a statement we don't see every day on a skeptic board.

Oh, wait, yes we do. It just usually comes from visiting religious believers, not skeptics.

From among visiting religious believes (pro-spanker here) I claim we do what we experience. Males are have taken the dominant position because.......wait for it........ they can dominate. Parents physically dominate because....... they can. Spanking is a ritualized form of physical dominance usually designed to get attention rather than harm. So one could say spanking is more appropriate than beating, throwing over a cliff, etc.

As for your search for any positive effects of spanking, the above outlines one, and this citation Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence

http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Cit...ary_Spanking__The_Scientific_Evidence.14.aspx is another.

This is supposed to be scientific evidence? This is an opinion piece (that's what "letter to the editors" translates to for normal folks). An opinion piece by a scientist from a relevant field, granted, but nonetheless an opinion piece. He does quote actual sources some of which might be worth looking into, but given that it's an opinion piece that doesn't undergo the regular review process, he could have easily selectively interpreted (even without malicious intent) those sources without anyone calling him out for it. In fact, in what might otherwise be his strongest argument (column 2, para 2), he even explicitly states that his conclusion differ from those of the actual authors of the actual study, without going into how this difference comes about.

On closer inspection, that argument is very fishy anyway: The spanking ban in Sweden was not introduced by a dictatorial regime, so it can be assumed that there was a fairly broad consensus against spanking even before the ban was introduced. On the other hand, no laws are being adhered to with 100% compliance rate, so there were people who were being spanked after the introduction of the law too. So calling the first generation that grew up after the ban "the first unspanked generation" when comparing them to people 10 years older than them is extremely misleading. If we are very generous we might assume that 40% of one generation and 80% of the other were unspanked. It is, therefore, logically impossible that a 6-fold increase in (a specific species of) crime is solely or primarily attributable to growing up without spanking. There must be other powerful factors, more powerful than spanking/non-spanking. Without a discussion of what those might be, we have no way to make even a wild guess as to how powerful they are. They could just as well be powerful enough to lead to an increase in (this species of) crime despite the positive effects of eliminating spanking, and saying "eliminating appropriate [sic!] spanking as an option for disciplinary enforcement appears to increase societal aggression" is thus plain dishonest.

 

[Jokodo]

They say about my kid too. I don't spank. So that leaves a few possibilities:

A) Some kids turn out great with or without spanking.
B) Either or both of us are taking the polite praise other people give us through our children too literally.
C) Both of us are just such great parents that the negative impact of (not) spanking is drowned by all the other things we do.
D) People in my country and your country have different standards of comparison.
(Others)

It does not allow you to conclude that "it works".

Of course it does. We both took different approaches to raising different children in different circumstances. Both of us are in the unique position of relating what works and what does not work for our kids. A blanket statement such as "X does not work" needs only a single example of X actually working to falsify the claim.

But you don't have an example of X working. You have an example of a mix which includes X not leading to disastrous results.

I had parents who were deeply distrustful of mainstream medicine and did their very best to treat all my childhood ailments with homeopathy (plus intensive physical care and moral support and hot baths and lots of teas, i.e. things that actually do work). I grew up to be a healthy adult, I dare say enviably healthy for how little exercise I do, how much I smoke, how irregular my sleep patterns are. This shows that relying in part on homeopathy isn't always disastrous, but I hope we both agree that it doesn't show homeopathy works. And yet you're using exactly that logic to come to the conclusion that spanking works.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I just had a conversation with a 5yo that put me in mind of this thread. He asked me why it's wrong to hit his brother if it's OK for his Dad to smack him.

I had a terrible dilemma, but resolved it by explaining that people have different views about it, that it was my view that hitting is wrong, that his Dad was bringing him up the way he had been brought up and was doing his best, and he would have to make his own decision about it when he was older, and did he understand that his Dad loved him? (He did).

I could not have been more mealy mouthed, but how do you avoid undermining a parent and still be honest with a child?

This is a really cluey kid, but I find it telling that a child still in kindergarten can pick up on the connection.

 

[Rhea]

This is a really cluey kid, but I find it telling that a child still in kindergarten can pick up on the connection.

And the part I find most useful is that the kindergarten kid can pick up on the connection and also not be able to distinguish why only one is okay. Which illustrates exactly the problem of thinking that the kids will know to not hit others when they themselves are spanked. They can't tell what's different about hitting v. spanking. So they conclude the obvious - that they are also permitted to strike.

 

[credoconsolans]

I just had a conversation with a 5yo that put me in mind of this thread. He asked me why it's wrong to hit his brother if it's OK for his Dad to smack him.

I had a terrible dilemma, but resolved it by explaining that people have different views about it, that it was my view that hitting is wrong, that his Dad was bringing him up the way he had been brought up and was doing his best, and he would have to make his own decision about it when he was older, and did he understand that his Dad loved him? (He did).

I could not have been more mealy mouthed, but how do you avoid undermining a parent and still be honest with a child?

This is a really cluey kid, but I find it telling that a child still in kindergarten can pick up on the connection.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

 

[RavenSky]

I just had a conversation with a 5yo that put me in mind of this thread. He asked me why it's wrong to hit his brother if it's OK for his Dad to smack him.

I had a terrible dilemma, but resolved it by explaining that people have different views about it, that it was my view that hitting is wrong, that his Dad was bringing him up the way he had been brought up and was doing his best, and he would have to make his own decision about it when he was older, and did he understand that his Dad loved him? (He did).

I could not have been more mealy mouthed, but how do you avoid undermining a parent and still be honest with a child?

This is a really cluey kid, but I find it telling that a child still in kindergarten can pick up on the connection.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

 

[Nira]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

The teacher are not to dish out physical punishment, ridicule or any other inappropriate disciplinary action. Neither are parents supposed to do.

 

[Jokodo]

I just had a conversation with a 5yo that put me in mind of this thread. He asked me why it's wrong to hit his brother if it's OK for his Dad to smack him.

I had a terrible dilemma, but resolved it by explaining that people have different views about it, that it was my view that hitting is wrong, that his Dad was bringing him up the way he had been brought up and was doing his best, and he would have to make his own decision about it when he was older, and did he understand that his Dad loved him? (He did).

I could not have been more mealy mouthed, but how do you avoid undermining a parent and still be honest with a child?

This is a really cluey kid, but I find it telling that a child still in kindergarten can pick up on the connection.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

 

[credoconsolans]

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

Well, only in the same way that they don't know beating their wife is wrong, they believe it's wrong. Plenty of people do think otherwise, as you know.

Physically assaulting someone is not a valid reponse and that holds true no matter how effective it may or may not be. If smacking your wife around a few times early in the marriage tends to lead decades of marital bliss at a much higher rate than for couples where the husband isn't abusive, that's still not a good excuse for smacking your wife around. It's the same for beating children, employees and everyone else whom you feel a need to discipline.

If you need to resort to violence to accomplish your goals, you are doing it wrong.

 

[rousseau]

There is no fucking way that raising your kid for their entire child-hood in a completely non-violent, but assertive and thoughtful way, will ever be worse than using violence against them. Whatever the convoluted logic is that says otherwise, I am just not seeing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise does not understand people as well as they think they do.

 

[Jokodo]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

You don't know that. Nothing in what Spike said implies so.

More broadly though: If you're setting your educational goals at beating a "concept of 'no'" into kids, you're doing it wrong. You'll end up with kids who've learnt the lesson of "don't do it while adults are watching". I want to teach my kid why it's a bad idea, and the take-home lesson to be "don't do it, period".

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

Just like we don't know that stoning people for adultery is wrong, we just believe it's wrong. Plenty of cultures think otherwise.

 

[rousseau]

Let me use an analogy about cats to explain. It sounds weird, but hear me out.

A cat is a great analogy to a young child because there is little to no conscious thought going on, just the experience of external events. Both a cat and a very young child don't understand almost anything about the world besides what you teach them by your actions. All they can do is work together primitive, associative patterns, and act accordingly.

Now, a few years back when I was a bit younger a friend of my parents had a pet cat. Unfortunately, the owners didn't really want a pet or even like animals so they mistreated it. They'd hit it off of furniture, kick it, the like. After a while the predominant experience the cat had of the world was one of being hurt, mistreated, and the people looking after it were not to be trusted. Consequently, it absolutely hated people, spent most of its time in hiding, and would quickly bite you if you got too close.

In the past year, on the other hand, my girlfriend and I adopted a cat from a woman who was.. for lack of a better term, a complete moron. She wasn't abusive but she didn't really know how to show real affection. Consequently, the cat we adopted was very distant, reclusive, independent, and very anti-social. Fortunately for the cat, my girlfriend and I are complete badasses and treat it like royalty. We give it lots of attention, we never hurt it, we respond when it asks for something.. etc and so on. And now, after a year of owning this cat she's extremely vocal toward us, happy, and affectionate.

Now, maybe a little bit of abuse isn't as bad as a lot of abuse, but the point most of us are making in this thread is that inflicting violence has negative consequences, however slight, and by completely avoiding physical violence and creating a positive, honest relationship with any living thing, including kids you are going to positively benefit their well being.

Take physical discipline to the extreme where it actually becomes abuse and you will see a situation like the one I mentioned. So knowing that hitting leads in that direction, and knowing that there are viable, real alternatives ... why would you hit your kids?

 

[RavenSky]

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

There is simply nothing valid that hitting a child teaches that child that can't be accomplished far more effectively by a non-hitting method. If an adult resorts to hitting a child, they've simply shown that child that (1) bullying works, and (2) the "adult" isn't actually being adult-like.

Further, there are lots of people that believe hitting their spouse is wrong, but plenty of other people who think otherwise. The latter people are wrong.

 

[credoconsolans]

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

Well, only in the same way that they don't know beating their wife is wrong, they believe it's wrong. Plenty of people do think otherwise, as you know.

Like I said, let's stick to the topic - children - otherwise we could conclude that someone who was never disciplined with physical force as a child, might grow up to expect that he can hit whoever he wants and they won't hit him back. Right?

Physically assaulting someone is not a valid reponse and that holds true no matter how effective it may or may not be.

And when spanking gets to be physical assault you let me know, then I can claim that you holding your child against his will in a "time out" is kidnapping.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

You don't know that. Nothing in what Spike said implies so.

It was pretty clear to me. Spike said his child wondered why it was wrong to his his brother. OBVIOUSLY Spike didn't immediately resort to physical discipline the first time his son did this and talking to him about why it was wrong didn't sink in.

More broadly though: If you're setting your educational goals at beating a "concept of 'no'" into kids, you're doing it wrong. You'll end up with kids who've learnt the lesson of "don't do it while adults are watching". I want to teach my kid why it's a bad idea, and the take-home lesson to be "don't do it, period".

Hard to do. There is always a possibility that ANY discipline a parent tries will be ignored when the parent is not around.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

Just like we don't know that stoning people for adultery is wrong, we just believe it's wrong. Plenty of cultures think otherwise.

Stick with our subject - kids, not dealing with another adult. Once people become adults, they are responsible for their own actions for good or bad and we have laws to deal with their lack of discipline.

 

[Rhea]

Physically assaulting someone is not a valid reponse and that holds true no matter how effective it may or may not be.

And when spanking gets to be physical assault you let me know, then I can claim that you holding your child against his will in a "time out" is kidnapping.

When my kids were young, we didn't really use "time out" unless they really wanted/needed some space to deal. Instead, we used the "buddy system" of making them stay right with us/by us to keep them out of trouble. "No, buddy, you gotta stay right here with me because you were not being safe, so we need to keep you safe and we'll do that by keeping you right here until you're able to understand safety by yourself. We'll hold you safe here if necessary." It worked pretty well. If you're out of control, loving mom or dad will take control until you're back on even keel.

One day the kids were playing in the sandbox and little sister(2-ish) was being a pill and wrecking the efforts of bigger brother (4ish). Big brother sighed, reached over, put his left hand on her head and pressed it to the ground (sideways, she could still breath fine) and held her there while he played on with his right hand. We stopped him and took her away, though it was kind of funny. But what happened was, he mimicked dealing with someone unruly the way he had learned. And it was not a risk of harm or injury. It was gentle and effective.

My 2¢ being that the kids will mimic the measures that are used to discipline them. And they don't believe or accept at a young age that it's okay for one person but not another.

 

[credoconsolans]

And when spanking gets to be physical assault you let me know, then I can claim that you holding your child against his will in a "time out" is kidnapping.

When my kids were young, we didn't really use "time out" unless they really wanted/needed some space to deal. Instead, we used the "buddy system" of making them stay right with us/by us to keep them out of trouble. "No, buddy, you gotta stay right here with me because you were not being safe, so we need to keep you safe and we'll do that by keeping you right here until you're able to understand safety by yourself. We'll hold you safe here if necessary." It worked pretty well. If you're out of control, loving mom or dad will take control until you're back on even keel.

One day the kids were playing in the sandbox and little sister(2-ish) was being a pill and wrecking the efforts of bigger brother (4ish). Big brother sighed, reached over, put his left hand on her head and pressed it to the ground (sideways, she could still breath fine) and held her there while he played on with his right hand. We stopped him and took her away, though it was kind of funny. But what happened was, he mimicked dealing with someone unruly the way he had learned. And it was not a risk of harm or injury. It was gentle and effective.

My 2¢ being that the kids will mimic the measures that are used to discipline them. And they don't believe or accept at a young age that it's okay for one person but not another.

What would you have done instead of sitting peacefully at your side, the child kept trying to leave your side and pitched a fit when you wouldn't let him?

All kids are different.