Discipline for children

[Toni]

Just popping in to say that I would not be ok with one kid pressing another kid's head to the ground and holding it there.

I have long since come to the conclusion that more experienced parents than I was back in the day were right: we did ask our kids too many questions and gave too many choices given their developmental stage st the time and considering the fact that the entire world did not revolve around whatever our 2 year old wanted and couldn't have and our efforts to 'reason' with him. There really is nothing wrong with stopping a kid from doing something that is annoying and irritating. Sometimes that means the parent actually inconveniencing themselves and removing the child who is behaving badly even if mom and or dad miss out.

Too many parents abdicate responsibility for teaching their kids to be considerate and polite. This does not serve the kid well.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Answering this in the mode of discussing parenting ideas, not preaching a magic answer, by the way.

What I found worked with my kids and also the kids I dealt with at daycares and schools is to hold their hands to have them stay and look at them and ask them questions about what was happening. Ask them about the fit they are pitching. Not tell, them, but rather give them a chance to be in on talking about it. Not hollywood-comedy talk, but kid-level. Questions like, "How can I let go of your hands when you're throwign sand? Don't we have to keep everyone's eyes safe? How can I let you go before you are safe?" and "What did you think would happen when the sand went in the air?" That's with younger kids who really do need to be stopped from the activity. Hold their hands, or if they are sitting perhaps their knees. If they are pitching a physical fit, I keep trying to get a question that they want to answer. That they want to answer enough to stop and answer it. It might be, "you wanted that book. But she also wanted the book at the same time. What were you thinking would be the way to share the book? And what did she think?" Sometimes it's an attempt at distraction. Long enough to stop the "fit" so that you can find out what their view of the situation is. Sometimes silly, like when they scream, I open my mouth like I'm doing the same. Sometimes it is singing. Either way, if I can make them look at me and wonder, "WTF is she DOING!?" then they aren't tantrumming any more. And then we can talk.


Older ones like 4,5,6 yo you can sit next to them. Older still 8,10, the most useful questions seem to be, "what did you want to happen, how did you think people would react?" Usually they didn't think. And this makes them think. And once they think, they do pretty well.

Right now I am tutoring a high school student who wants to drop out and for the teachers to drop dead. Different challenges, but also the same in many ways. Sit with me, I'll help you move through this zone where you don't want to move, until you're on your feet.

 

[Toni]

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.

The whole 'you're a kid and I'm a adult ' line of reasoning lets kids learn very quickly that they cannot trust adults who are rank hypocrites. Or fools. Or both. This is reinforced by claiming that adults don't hot one another because they've learned self control, a claim that is undermined immediately when the adult hits the kid. Some self control.

 

[Rhea]

Just popping in to say that I would not be ok with one kid pressing another kid's head to the ground and holding it there.

We weren't okay with it either, which is why I went out and stopped it and brought her inside. But it was significantly less frantic than if he were hitting, and she was certainly less concerned than if someone were hitting or spanking her. She was just, "there's sand in my ear!" And she was snatching his cars and wrecking his roads, so she did need to be removed.

 

[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.

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.

First, Spike is a she. Second, she wasn't talking about her own child. And third, You're making this up. The kid's father may or may not have immediately resorted to physical violence (call it discipline if you like) the kid hit his brother, and he may or may not have attempted to explain it to him by talking about why it's wrong. It rather sounds like the kid would have been able to accept an explanation - if only it weren't inconsistent with dad's own actions.

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.

Kid's grasp a lot more than you give them credit for.

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.

I'm not changing the subject. I'm applying your logic to a different scenario.

 

[One]

Very late to the party, but been reading responses. There is an underlying assumption that children are always innocent and benign creatures that require only a bit of love and attention to steer them on the right path. I don't believe this is the case.

For the last two weeks, I have provided parental support to a gentleman with a son that has vandalized his house, including breaking out windows, destroying furniture and writing death threats on the walls. He has also assaulted his mother and father during this time period by punching them hard enough to leaves marks on the body.

These are not the only parents I have heard of with stories like this that call me for such things. I am associated with a mother of a 7 year old that batters her. This same child attempted to hit me once. I picked him up, held him upside down with a shake and told him, "I can do this shit all day until you sit your ass down and stop treating your mother like that." Scared him so bad he burst into tears. But he did not attempt to hit me ever again. In fact, the school began calling me to go on fieldtrips to supervise him along with his mother.

While I am not an advocate of strong corporeal punishment, I am also aware that there are certain types of children that will push the physical envelope until you shove back harder. The same way a bully will only stop upon getting punched one good time. Most kids don't need that sort of thing. But there's some of them that do.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

No, you let us know when we've re-introduced lashings as a legitimate form of punishment - only then will the two become comparable. There's plenty of situations that are perceived as exceptions to the general rule of "don't hold anyone against their will" when doing so serves public safety, without perceiving the act as kidnapping. There are no situations which we perceive as legitimate exceptions to the rule of "don't inflict unnecessary pain" when it comes to adults.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

First, Spike is a she. Second, she wasn't talking about her own child. And third, You're making this up. The kid's father may or may not have immediately resorted to physical violence (call it discipline if you like) the kid hit his brother, and he may or may not have attempted to explain it to him by talking about why it's wrong. It rather sounds like the kid would have been able to accept an explanation - if only it weren't inconsistent with dad's own actions.

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

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.

Adults who have learned self discipline don't hit other people. Adults who were physically disciplined as kids have to undo the lessons of what they have experienced and observed if they are to come to self- rather than externally imposed- discipline.

The kid was smart enough to see the hypocrisy in the two different stances.

Very late to the party, but been reading responses. There is an underlying assumption that children are always innocent and benign creatures that require only a bit of love and attention to steer them on the right path. I don't believe this is the case.

For the last two weeks, I have provided parental support to a gentleman with a son that has vandalized his house, including breaking out windows, destroying furniture and writing death threats on the walls. He has also assaulted his mother and father during this time period by punching them hard enough to leaves marks on the body.

These are not the only parents I have heard of with stories like this that call me for such things. I am associated with a mother of a 7 year old that batters her. This same child attempted to hit me once. I picked him up, held him upside down with a shake and told him, "I can do this shit all day until you sit your ass down and stop treating your mother like that." Scared him so bad he burst into tears. But he did not attempt to hit me ever again. In fact, the school began calling me to go on fieldtrips to supervise him along with his mother.

While I am not an advocate of strong corporeal punishment, I am also aware that there are certain types of children that will push the physical envelope until you shove back harder. The same way a bully will only stop upon getting punched one good time. Most kids don't need that sort of thing. But there's some of them that do.

Kids are largely the products of their experience. There are exceptions, but look for violence in the life of a violent child. I note that you opted for a discouraging technique that got the kid's attention and gave you a chance to communicate with the child, but you didn't hit him.

 

[Playball40]

Very late to the party, but been reading responses. There is an underlying assumption that children are always innocent and benign creatures that require only a bit of love and attention to steer them on the right path. I don't believe this is the case.

For the last two weeks, I have provided parental support to a gentleman with a son that has vandalized his house, including breaking out windows, destroying furniture and writing death threats on the walls. He has also assaulted his mother and father during this time period by punching them hard enough to leaves marks on the body.

These are not the only parents I have heard of with stories like this that call me for such things. I am associated with a mother of a 7 year old that batters her. This same child attempted to hit me once. I picked him up, held him upside down with a shake and told him, "I can do this shit all day until you sit your ass down and stop treating your mother like that." Scared him so bad he burst into tears. But he did not attempt to hit me ever again. In fact, the school began calling me to go on fieldtrips to supervise him along with his mother.

While I am not an advocate of strong corporeal punishment, I am also aware that there are certain types of children that will push the physical envelope until you shove back harder. The same way a bully will only stop upon getting punched one good time. Most kids don't need that sort of thing. But there's some of them that do.

hate to tell you this, but those children are not on the "normal behavior" spectrum. I don't believe we are talking about kids with anger management (although holding them upside down and shaking them is NOT the answer) or other disassociative conditions. I have had to deal with children on that spectrum and it's not easy, I know. However, if we had done what you did, we would have been arrested.

 

[Angry Floof]

0, we don't see children as benign angels, but as human beings. Small, vulnerable, human beings.

Restraining a violent child may be justified, but hitting isn't, and while getting angry with them is understandable, it's not justification for shaking or hitting.

Edited: And children are innocent.

 

[Davka]

Very late to the party, but been reading responses. There is an underlying assumption that children are always innocent and benign creatures that require only a bit of love and attention to steer them on the right path. I don't believe this is the case.

For the last two weeks, I have provided parental support to a gentleman with a son that has vandalized his house, including breaking out windows, destroying furniture and writing death threats on the walls. He has also assaulted his mother and father during this time period by punching them hard enough to leaves marks on the body.

These are not the only parents I have heard of with stories like this that call me for such things. I am associated with a mother of a 7 year old that batters her. This same child attempted to hit me once. I picked him up, held him upside down with a shake and told him, "I can do this shit all day until you sit your ass down and stop treating your mother like that." Scared him so bad he burst into tears. But he did not attempt to hit me ever again. In fact, the school began calling me to go on fieldtrips to supervise him along with his mother.

While I am not an advocate of strong corporeal punishment, I am also aware that there are certain types of children that will push the physical envelope until you shove back harder. The same way a bully will only stop upon getting punched one good time. Most kids don't need that sort of thing. But there's some of them that do.

Parents who have never experienced kids on the extreme edge of the bell curve often cannot conceive of their existence. The fact that some children will push until physically pushed back does not fit into the confirmation bias of this thread, therefore it must not be real.

- - - Updated - - -

0, we don't see children as benign angels, but as human beings. Small, vulnerable, human beings.

Restraining a violent child may be justified, but hitting isn't, and while getting angry with them is understandable, it's not justification for shaking or hitting.

Edited: And children are innocent.

Actually, it's the getting angry that's really harmful. And nobody is innocent. We're all selfish, sneaky liars and thieves. If you deny this, you deny your own humanity.

 

[Davka]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Actually, the kid was asking why it was OK for his father to "smack" him. Answer: It's not. Spanking, done right, is as different from "smacking" or "hitting" as working on the hinges to fix a door is different from kicking it to open it.

I love the way that every single anti-spanking poster on this thread refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the difference. It's like watching an echo-chamber full of YECists agree that we cannot have come from monkeys because there are still monkeys.

 

[Angry Floof]

0, we don't see children as benign angels, but as human beings. Small, vulnerable, human beings.

Restraining a violent child may be justified, but hitting isn't, and while getting angry with them is understandable, it's not justification for shaking or hitting.

Edited: And children are innocent.

Actually, it's the getting angry that's really harmful. And nobody is innocent. We're all selfish, sneaky liars and thieves. If you deny this, you deny your own humanity.

Of course, but if you think that is the extent of what we are, then it's no wonder your regard for children is one of guilt and punishment.

If you deny the visceral feeling of vindication when hitting kids with this mindset, or even when talking about it, then YOU are the liar.

Negativity bias is a powerful thing, but still surprising coming from you given the myriad posts you've made on the topic of morality and ethics, posts that show you're more than capable of looking beyond reactionary views.

And in a sense, we are all innocent, as we are living legacies of generation upon generation being trained by a culture in which guilt/sin/punishment/unworthiness are deeply ingrained.

Not all human beings will recognize that, much less strive to change their own crime/punishment mentality, and even those who do try often do not succeed, but many will not ever take the first step. Our minds are brilliant in that they can concoct justification for all kinds of backward, harmful beliefs.

As for getting angry, how the hell does anyone choose their emotions before they happen? Is this how you think you operate as a human being? That you decide beforehand not to have any negative emotions? Anger happens, and it's how you respond to it and express it that says anything about you that anyone could judge, not your ability to fool yourself into thinking you can just not experience anger.

Parents who have never experienced kids on the extreme edge of the bell curve often cannot conceive of their existence. The fact that some children will push until physically pushed back does not fit into the confirmation bias of this thread, therefore it must not be real.

This is a bullshit lie you pulled out of your ass. Talk about confirmation bias. Doesn't it feel good to believe it, though?

My understanding of children might well be more ignorant than yours, but in acknowledging my own ignorance, I choose the humane view.

 

[Rhea]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Actually, the kid was asking why it was OK for his father to "smack" him. Answer: It's not. Spanking, done right, is as different from "smacking" or "hitting" as working on the hinges to fix a door is different from kicking it to open it.

I love the way that every single anti-spanking poster on this thread refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the difference. It's like watching an echo-chamber full of YECists agree that we cannot have come from monkeys because there are still monkeys.

For the record, some of us are not "anti" or "pro" and can consider the difference between "smacking" and "properly applied spanking" and still explore a child's ability to tell the difference as well as our own.

I am quite truly and honestly not "anti" spanking. I have no visceral reaction and very little emotion on the subject. It is calculated pragmatism to me. When I see someone "smacking" their kid in public, I don't actually think, "what a cruel person!" I more often think, "I don't expect that'll work as well as you want."

I am truly a student of the child's reactions, not my own memories and base my opinion on that. (Why do I claim that? Because I was spanked hard, angrily and with 2x4s and I don't have an angry memory of that, just a sense that it was ineffective.)

O is right that there are kids whose behavior is much further out on the curve. Some are downright sociopath. This is true and real.
And I would counter (except in the case of the clinical sociopath), that earlier in those kids' lives different disciplines could have created different results. Once they have been exposed to the behavior that they should not repeat, they will be harder to guide. Not impossible, but much harder. (Still, I don't condemn reactions like the one O gave, I just don't think it's the only one, and I'm sure she doesn't either.) The situation of dealing with a post-spanking child (or more dramatically, a post-trauma child) is so different than deciding whether spanking itself is effective that it would need to be a separate discussion altogether, IMHO.

I do believe from observation that kids do mimic to others what was done to them with a very natural disregard for what someone else is entitled to do that they are not. Kids want "equal" not "fair" in general. And so leaning to the side of doing to children only what children are allowed to do to others will produce the fewest deviations from them later.

Again, from a coldly pragmatic standpoint. Every single thing that a parent does that a child may not brings up the question, "why you and not me?" It always comes up, whether they verbalize it to you or not. Why can you have wine and I can't? Why can you shower and I have to bathe? Why do I have to put down the toilet seat but you don't have to put it up? Why can you do your chores in the evening, but I have to do mine in the afternoon? Why why why. They always think it, sometimes ask it, when they encounter a case when they are told "some for me and none for thee." And if they aren't told that, they will assume that what you can do, I can do, too. Until they do it and are told they mustn't.

Spanking is not magically different in this regard. If you yell at your child when frustrated, that child will use yelling when they are frustrated. If you say please and thank you every day, the child will develop that, too. If you spank a child, the child will think spanking is the thing to do when someone misbehaves, and you'll be pressed into explaining why not after you see them. In my experience.

 

[rousseau]

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.

WHY SPIKEPIPSQUEAK!? WHY!?

Also here is a picture of a circle:

 

[Rhea]

Also here is a picture of a circle:

That is oddly disturbing.

 

[Jokodo]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Actually, the kid was asking why it was OK for his father to "smack" him. Answer: It's not. Spanking, done right, is as different from "smacking" or "hitting" as working on the hinges to fix a door is different from kicking it to open it.

I love the way that every single anti-spanking poster on this thread refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the difference. It's like watching an echo-chamber full of YECists agree that we cannot have come from monkeys because there are still monkeys.

YEC echo chamber? Coming from a person who uses "logic" which can equally be used to demonstrate his the efficacy of homeopathy to support his claim that spanking works?

And your protestations notwithstanding, everybody acknowledges that there is a difference between spanking and beating up a kid where it requires hospitalisation. That doesn't change the fact that spanking is a form of hitting. Not the most severe/cruel/harmful one, but neither has anybody claimed. What you're doing here is parallel to accusing us of equating between armed robbery and pickpocketing because we call the latter a property crime.

 

[Davka]

Like i said, a total and complete inability to use rational arguments when confronted with emotionally-loaded issues. It's amazing how many attacks I've been subjected to for daring to have a different opinion.

 

[Jokodo]

Like i said, a total and complete inability to use rational arguments when confronted with emotionally-loaded issues. It's amazing how many attacks I've been subjected to for daring to have a different opinion.

I don't see attacks, would you be so kind as to provide examples? I see you acting offended because people don't buy your crappy arguments, that's not the same as being attacked.

 

[Jokodo]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Actually, the kid was asking why it was OK for his father to "smack" him. Answer: It's not. Spanking, done right, is as different from "smacking" or "hitting" as working on the hinges to fix a door is different from kicking it to open it.<snip>

The main difference between "spanking" and "smacking" appears to be that one is used in American English and the other in British (and it appears Australian) English to describe the exact same thing.

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.at/2007/10/smacking-and-spanking.html

So no reason to get all worked up about how people are equivocating between totally different things. You're free to address the actual arguments. Thank you.