What does "discipline" mean to you? [Archive]

BRussell

11-24-2004, 05:48 PM

Oh look, someone on the internet is breaking up a sentence into individual words and separating them with periods. I've never seen that before, that's really cool.

It's true that the severity of punishment increases the learning of an avoidance response. Take some rats, shock them when they go near one side of the cage, and the rats that get the most painful shock will show the greatest behavioral change. Yup.

A couple of problems though:

1. You can't use high-pain punishment with a child, because you might injure them. Or if you can, you're sick. And if you don't use high-intensity pain, then what's the point? You might as well just use time out or take away their favorite toy. If, like most people, you say you draw the line at mild hitting, why not draw it at no hitting? Isn't that a clearer line? Or barring that, how do you justify not going all out and just torturing the child with lit cigarettes? If it's not about morality, but rather effectiveness, then the more pain, the more effectiveness. IMO people only use mild hitting because they instinctually know it's wrong in the first place.

2. The goal of parenting is internalization. You want the kid to act appropriately not only when you can catch and smack them, but also when you're not there, and also when they grow up. You want them to learn a lesson, not just be controlled by you. And the way to get internalization is to let them learn lessons on their own, and to use the least amount of coercion possible.

3. Kids do internalize one lesson from hitting: That the use of physical violence to get someone to do what you want is appropriate. How come we don't allow a husband to hit a wife? Or a boss to hit an employee? It's because we believe it's immoral. And yet most parents hit their kids. It's inconsistent, and sends inconsistent messages to kids.

Hiro

11-24-2004, 06:23 PM

I disagree spanking is inconsistent. If used jusiciously in it's proper place it is quite effectively seperated from the wonton hitting idea. Just like anything though, used poorly it will create more mess than it was supposed to fix in the first place. Anyone who thinks there is a one size fits all solution on either side of the fence has removed themselves from the big picture.

NJ Tom

11-24-2004, 07:36 PM

What does "discipline" mean to you?

Black Leather

bergz

11-24-2004, 07:42 PM

The part of the brain in certain apes (us included) that gives members of a social group a sense of right and wrong has been identified. One not so startling parallel discovery is that this region of the brain in humans does not begin developing until at the very least three years of age, sometimes not even until 5. What this means is that children are psychopaths, unable to differentiate right from wrong, and totally self-involved. However, training them to make the right choices doesn't necessarily presuppose that they know why they're the right choices (a memorable quote from Matrix seems appropriate here). 200 million years of mammalian development has ingrained in us a certain way to moderate behavior. The problem is that members of our particular society are so obsessed with the cult of the individual that they seem to take a spank to heart. They don't understand that it's not about you, but what you did. In many less "advanced" cultures, this distinction is so self-evident that parsing child-abuse and discipline makes as much sense as parsing the difference between poverty and robbery. It's just a part of life. Like hardship. Life is hard. That doesn't necessarily make it unjust.

--B

trumptman

11-24-2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by fuzz_ball
You seem to imply that hitting a child does work. By your statement, if I got a child to behave by burning their hands with a hot iron, then who are you to criticize; however, I believe most Americans would agree that is abuse, not "discipline" and that method would be condemned.

First, there is a large difference between hitting a child, and giving them a startling slap on the most padded part of their body. (their butt)

The second sentence is what we with reasoning skills call a strawman argument. An extreme example meant for no other purpose than to knock down and apply the inference to the real argument.

Here's a nice reverse example. If I could find someone who managed to discipline their child through nothing more than stern looks and stares, could I claim that you are verbally abusing any child to whom you speak in a tone or raised voice?

So, come out and say it, do you support violence perpetrated on children in the name of "discipline" or don't you? If you do, then why? If you tell me "I was spanked/beat/belted as a kid, and I turned out okay", well that argument simply won't fly. That's like saying jaywalking isn't dangerous because you've never been hit by a car when doing it.

I do support spanking, especially in very young children. They don't always have the reasoning skills or self-control to think about a situation at that age. In instances where I use spanking, the alternatives are often much worse.

What I find quite amusing is most leftist types don't automatically assign rights just because one is human. This is especially true with an abortion argument. One must have a certain level of cognition and development to be afforded certain rights. Very young children do not have the same sense of abstraction or the same level of reasoning as say preteen children or adults.

Finally, regarding asking one person for their "methods and outcomes" and comparing them to yours proves nothing. Test cases can be illustrations, but scholars/professionals know not to derive generalities from test cases alone.

I didn't BRussell to compare his methods to mine. I simply asked him to express what he used in lieu of spanking since he disapproved of it.

Nick

trumptman

11-24-2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Benadryl. Lots of benadryl.

Cute, very cute. Although in this age, it is almost a little too true to be funny.

[edit]I don't have any secrets. You slog through the best you can. I believe in discipline and teaching manners and good habits. But there are laws about smacking other people around, and I agree with those laws, and I think they should apply even if it's a family member doing the smacking.

Yes, but the law does deal with the shades of gray, including those involving spanking. Yet most people with anti-spanking views choose to ignore those. If you slapped a knife away from a family member who had become a danger to themselves, that wouldn't be considered assault. If you tackled, restrained, or even sat on someone who was out of control this wouldn't be considered harmful, in fact it wouldn't be so even if it were teacher to student.

There are lots of gray areas you seem to choose to ignore involving physicality.

In general, I'm not at all convinced that specific parenting techniques really make much of a difference one way or the other in the long run, except at the extremes, like neglect. Kids are born with personalities and they are influenced heavily by the culture - for better or (mostly) worse - and unfortunately what we do as parents doesn't have as much of an influence as most of us would like to believe.

I'll have to agree and disagree here. :p If we see some very heavyset parents, we often aren't surprised that the children are as well. My children love books in part because our entire houses is loaded down with books and we happen to go to book stores all the time. Now culture does play a part in that they might desire a SpongeBob or Scooby Doo book, (Evil marketing!) but I know the desire to read has been cultivated by my wife and me.

Also I do believe that most parents simply don't take the time to create very deep bonds with their children. They take the attitude that nothing urgently wrong must mean everything is alright. That simply isn't true. Children can't watch an average of five hours of television a day and have their folks be called "parents" in my eyes. Plus remember that is an average which means that the chidren like mine, who watch 0-1 hours are offset by some nice parents who are allowing that tube to raise their children for 9-10 hours a day.

Nick

tonton

11-25-2004, 02:37 AM

I can't believe Trumptman, a teacher, condones corporal punishment.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child!" Give me a fucking break. This isn't the dark ages. Ther ARE ways to punish children that don't involve violence. There are very effective ways, indeed, especially in these days of instant gratification in entertainment.

The kid doesn't clean his room? No TV. The kid doesn't do their homework on time? No video games. The kid lies or disobeys a direct order, a grounding is in order. Meanwhile you can teach them the value of reading while they're not allowed to watch TV or go out or play video games.

Even in very young kids, an unhappy parent is usually enough for them to feel sorry for what they've done, especially if they value that parent's love, which most non-neglected children do. I don't know. Maybe Trumpt's kids don't care if he's unhappy because they never see him anyway (I'm not saying that's true, just that it might be an explanation for his idea that young children respond best to physical discipline). Getting no dessert at dinner time is enough to make them feel they've done something wrong. Maybe, however, in Trumpt's case there is no family dinner time, so that wouldn't affect them, either.

And for older kids, if you have so little control of your child that you are unable to enforce a grounding, that's your fault, and it's not because you didn't spank them.

I absolutely agree with BRussell. Parents who think there's a a need to spank kids are just too stupid or too lazy to come up with alternatives.

And I've told you some of mine.

tonton

11-25-2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Hiro
I disagree spanking is inconsistent. If used jusiciously in it's proper place it is quite effectively seperated from the wonton hitting idea. Just like anything though, used poorly it will create more mess than it was supposed to fix in the first place. Anyone who thinks there is a one size fits all solution on either side of the fence has removed themselves from the big picture.

Among other things, spanking teaches kids that if they want to enforce their own authority or get their way over someone who they are not afraid of, they should hit them. I bet George Bush was spanked a lot as a kid. I bet Nick was spanked a lot, too.

tonton

11-25-2004, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
3. Kids do internalize one lesson from hitting: That the use of physical violence to get someone to do what you want is appropriate. How come we don't allow a husband to hit a wife? Or a boss to hit an employee? It's because we believe it's immoral. And yet most parents hit their kids. It's inconsistent, and sends inconsistent messages to kids.

This is exactly what I said in the above post.

And by the way, sometimes my girlfriend spanks me when I'm naughty. :wow: ;)

trumptman

11-25-2004, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by tonton
I can't believe Trumptman, a teacher, condones corporal punishment.

Let me ask you something Ton. Was there ever a time in your adult life where you didn't listen to good reasoning? Where those around perhaps told you a certain person or situation was going to turn out badly and it was evident to those around you, but you were blind to it yourself? Certain things are right and wrong regardless of our ability to be aware of it at the time. Plenty of folks don't realize the worth of water until the well runs dry.

I ask this because if that can happen as an adult, it can certainly happen to say a four year old.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child!" Give me a fucking break. This isn't the dark ages. There ARE ways to punish children that don't involve violence. There are very effective ways, indeed, especially in these days of instant gratification in entertainment.

All these parents that are sparing their child from the "dark ages" as you put it are also drugging their children with record numbers of drugs when they fail to understand and act on their reasoning. Most of these drugs induce permanent changes in their brain chemestry. I'd rather use a tap on the bum at a very early age than deal with such nonsense. Also you don't seem to realize that any sort of external force used to communicate and enforce any sort of external values is wrong according to the folks who admonish against spanking. You are just as guilty as someone who swats by their reasoning. Believing there are universal, transcendent, external values independent of ourselves is just as "dark ages" as the swats you condemn. You've obviously not read up on this or even really dove into any sort of multiculturalism or postmodernism.

The kid doesn't clean his room? No TV. The kid doesn't do their homework on time? No video games. The kid lies or disobeys a direct order, a grounding is in order. Meanwhile you can teach them the value of reading while they're not allowed to watch TV or go out or play video games.

Wow, what a lot of assuptions you suppose there. First you obviously only care to discuss school age children. I've said specifically that spanking is effective for very young children who don't have full reasoning capacity yet, and for whom the alternatives are worse when not obeying. Also look at the choices you are endorsing there. They sound terrible. I would not restrict my child from going outside for any lengthy period of time. That sounds much more cruel than a quick swat. Do you believe isolating a child for some extended period isn't cruel? I believe that form of punishment has been removed even from most prisons.

I would remind you though that external rewards and disincentives are considered just as bad as spanking. The child still does not reach a conclusion on their own. The decision making and rationals are still not internalized, rather it is just external forces of a different sort bringing about a desired result. Threats of a swat vs. threats of isolation or loss of material possessions are still threats. You need to do a little more reading in this area because you don't seem to realize the trendy bandwagon you jump on would still condemn the measures you advocate. You are still in the "dark ages" yourself.

I'll give you a very clear example of when I spanked my child. We had a pool at our house. We didn't want the young ones around it so it had a five foot protective fence installed blocking access to it. The gate had a latch at that five foot level. My two year old son had figured out how to pop that latch using basically anything with a handle he could find. He would pop the latch and open the gate. I didn't want to put a lock on the latch because heaven forbid if he found another way in and happened to fall in, I would be the one trying to undo the lock while he drowned.

Now he had several timeouts and discussions about why not to go toward that pool without adults supervising. The reality though is that two year olds really don't have a very good understanding of death and what it constitutes. Most of them sort of equate it with sleeping which doesn't sound too terrible. So when the timeouts and discussions didn't work, he got some startling swats. Perhaps at the two year old level I only got compliance via his fear of that spanking. However the thing he ought to properly fear, his death and the grossly high amount of risk he was undertaking, he didn't understand yet.

Even in very young kids, an unhappy parent is usually enough for them to feel sorry for what they've done, especially if they value that parent's love, which most non-neglected children do. I don't know. Maybe Trumpt's kids don't care if he's unhappy because they never see him anyway (I'm not saying that's true, just that it might be an explanation for his idea that young children respond best to physical discipline). Getting no dessert at dinner time is enough to make them feel they've done something wrong. Maybe, however, in Trumpt's case there is no family dinner time, so that wouldn't affect them, eithe

Are you high? My wife stays home fulltime and I work as a teacher. I only work about 175 days a year. I have every weekend, every holiday, and three solid months off from work each year. I'm home each day by four o'clock and we have a family dinner daily. Take your accusations elsewhere. I'm not the one subjecting my kid to a broken home and a girlfriend of the moment. (I'm not saying this is true, but you know it makes me feel better if I put this disclaimer in while making obvious personal attacks:rolleyes: )

What sort of sick individual has their children thinking only of what might please or displease the adult in their lives? Do you have your child believing your love for them is so conditional that they fear losing it at every turn and so blindly obey you? Your chief tool sounds like guilt trips.

Look at all the external rewards and guilt tools you use to bring about compliance. You really feel like these cultivate an internalized value system and use of it? Homework isn't done because it reflects a educational values. It is done because Dad will give me a guilt trip, induce isolation while showing conditional love and externally threaten me by showing that the items he has granted me are only there conditionally as well. Perhaps this child, alone in the "cell" called their bedroom can ponder whether their existance in the family is conditional as well. After all when Mommy and Daddy didn't get along, he tossed her away so maybe he will do the same with me.

Sorry if that sounds cruel, but you certainly judge others. Since I have a pretty clear understanding of the folks you use to judge with, I can use their language to reflect on your methods as well. Amazingly, it makes you sound just as abusive and terrible as someone who spanks.

And for older kids, if you have so little control of your child that you are unable to enforce a grounding, that's your fault, and it's not because you didn't spank them.

I absolutely agree with BRussell. Parents who think there's a a need to spanik kids are just too stupid or too lazy to come up with alternatives.

And I've told you some of mine.

What you fail to realize is that your "alternatives" would be just as readily condemned by the same "experts" who condemn spanking. Really, the irony is almost laughable. Being a teacher and having read pretty extensively in this area, I can tell you that most experts would consider your signs of conditional love, forms of extended isolation, and various external threats to be just as cruel if not more so than spanking. Of course you would also realize that most of these experts believe children are born perfect and are only taught any naughty habits by their parents and the company they keep.

Really, do some reading on say John Dewey and values clarification. You would quickly realize that you would be condemned as a horrible parent, just as you condemn those who externally enforce their will via a swat.

Nick

Hassan i Sabbah

11-25-2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
What I find quite amusing is most leftist types don't automatically assign rights just because one is human. This is especially true with an abortion argument. One must have a certain level of cognition and development to be afforded certain rights. Very young children do not have the same sense of abstraction or the same level of reasoning as say preteen children or adults.

Why did you have to bring 'leftist types' into this discussion about discipline? We were getting on fine without it. Why did you feel the need to do this? This thread was perfectly OK without all that.

stupider...likeafox

11-25-2004, 08:58 AM

None of the books about dog training I've read advocate violence, in fact most go to great lengths to explain why it is counter-productive. Bloody hippy dog trainers!

BRussell

11-25-2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Cute, very cute. Although in this age, it is almost a little too true to be funny. There was actually a much-discussed case (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/08/11/daycare.death.ap/) in my state of a daycare that was regularly giving benadryl to kids for nap time and one of the kids died.Yes, but the law does deal with the shades of gray, including those involving spanking. Yet most people with anti-spanking views choose to ignore those. If you slapped a knife away from a family member who had become a danger to themselves, that wouldn't be considered assault. If you tackled, restrained, or even sat on someone who was out of control this wouldn't be considered harmful, in fact it wouldn't be so even if it were teacher to student.

There are lots of gray areas you seem to choose to ignore involving physicality. Yeah, you're allowed to hit people under certain conditions. Hell you're allowed to kill someone under the right conditions (e.g., self-defense). But I don't think any of those conditions match up to how people use spanking. You haven't cleaned your room I'll give you one more chance OK that's it you're getting it that'll teach you. And yet if my wife didn't clean the dishes after dinner it would be felony assault for me to hit her, as it should be.I'll have to agree and disagree here. :p If we see some very heavyset parents, we often aren't surprised that the children are as well. My children love books in part because our entire houses is loaded down with books and we happen to go to book stores all the time. Now culture does play a part in that they might desire a SpongeBob or Scooby Doo book, (Evil marketing!) but I know the desire to read has been cultivated by my wife and me.

Also I do believe that most parents simply don't take the time to create very deep bonds with their children. They take the attitude that nothing urgently wrong must mean everything is alright. That simply isn't true. Children can't watch an average of five hours of television a day and have their folks be called "parents" in my eyes. Plus remember that is an average which means that the chidren like mine, who watch 0-1 hours are offset by some nice parents who are allowing that tube to raise their children for 9-10 hours a day. Couldn't agree more. TV is one of those evil corrosive, horrible things that most of us accept without questioning.

Let me comment on the other issues though: When you see the fat parents with the fat kids, its not only possible that the kids have been taught how to eat, but it's also possible that genes are playing a role. For example, it's pretty well established that abusive parents have kids who grow up to be abusive themselves. But although it's always been assumed it's caused by nurture, it's also possible that it's at least partially genetic. I bet genetic explanations are ignored in favor of nurture explanations quite often.

trumptman

11-25-2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, you're allowed to hit people under certain conditions. Hell you're allowed to kill someone under the right conditions (e.g., self-defense). But I don't think any of those conditions match up to how people use spanking. You haven't cleaned your room I'll give you one more chance OK that's it you're getting it that'll teach you. And yet if my wife didn't clean the dishes after dinner it would be felony assault for me to hit her, as it should be. Couldn't agree more. TV is one of those evil corrosive, horrible things that most of us accept without questioning.

Again, you could also divorce your wife for refusing to do the dishes. You could not divorce or leave your child for refusing to do your bidding. Different tools for different roles.

Let me comment on the other issues though: When you see the fat parents with the fat kids, its not only possible that the kids have been taught how to eat, but it's also possible that genes are playing a role. For example, it's pretty well established that abusive parents have kids who grow up to be abusive themselves. But although it's always been assumed it's caused by nurture, it's also possible that it's at least partially genetic. I bet genetic explanations are ignored in favor of nurture explanations quite often.

Suppose you were right and it can be assigned a nature vs. nurture value. What are we really doing then and how do we really solve it? Are we legislating against nature and will future court cases give one the right to be violent much as they now give one the right to commit sodomy or be homosexual? Also how then is the problem solved, eugenics?

I think I would almost rather be deluded and believe it nurture than go down those paths.:\

Nick

stupider...likeafox

11-25-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
commit sodomy

Interesting turn of phrase you've got there.

Got a dog, trumpt? Do you (would you) hit it in order to train it?

Placebo

11-25-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by trumptman

I do support spanking, especially in very young children. They don't always have the reasoning skills or self-control to think about a situation at that age. Nick
If that's true, why do you think that they'll 'understand' spanking?

Powerdoc

11-25-2004, 02:20 PM

I have seen two terribles examples of education in my life. The mothers where MD psychiatrist.

No spanking or no punishment was their golden laws. When the fathers tried to have some form of authorities upon their kids, the mothers told them, that they were wrong, and that they have to follow the light, aka the golden laws of modern psychology. Always explain never punish.
I witness personally one scene, where the father just wanted to get back his bag : the boy refused and starting crying. The mother told her husband, to let the boy take the bag.

The result of all this was : terrible childs crying and raging whenever they disliked something, husbands totally frustrated.
I don't know for the childs, but at least, one of the husband divorced.

I thanks god to not have marry a MD psychiatrist. For me education does not live in a book : we have to be naturals. If I am angry, then I am angry. I don't pretend to be perfect, and I will not pretend this in front of my childs. I don't follow guidelines from books, wether this guidelines are coming from Dolto, or from the old school.

Placebo

11-25-2004, 02:23 PM

I think that most of behavioral trouble goes away by the time the child is grown enough to be taught with words and explanations.

Powerdoc

11-25-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
If that's true, why do you think that they'll 'understand' spanking?

No they just stop. And this is the only purpose of the spanking (or the fear to be spanked).
My younger daughter is five. Here is a typical sequences with her :

- me Stop doing this
- her : she did not listen and continue
- me : stop doing this
- her : she stop for five seconds and continue
- me louder : stop it
- her : she stops for five seconds and seems to do not have listened
- me : if you continue I will spank you
- her : it works she stop.

It's that simple. With my elder daughter, there is no need to do this kind of threats. Others punitions are more effective. For youngs kids it's not. At least not in my personal experience.

Powerdoc

11-25-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
I think that most of behavioral trouble goes away by the time the child is grown enough to be taught with words and explanations.

It's true, but my childs will be dead or seriously hurted, if I was not there to make them obey (don't put your fingers in plugs ...).

trumptman

11-25-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
If that's true, why do you think that they'll 'understand' spanking?

I didn't claim they would "understand" the spanking. I even fully admitted that it may have been nothing more than fear of the spanking that brought about compliance with regard to the pool. However the point is that he couldn't/didn't understand the consequences of his actions and so more reasoning and explanation would not have solved the problem. The alternative to the spanking, his likely death, was not acceptable.

Nick

Powerdoc

11-25-2004, 02:31 PM

Trumptman : I entirely agree with your points (except for the leftist thing wich is for me more a psychologist pattern*)

* not shared, by all psychiastrist luckily.

Powerdoc

11-25-2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
BRussell's got my vote.

"Spanking" your children is like an admission of failure for parents. "Hey-- we can't raise our kids right. Let's hit them!" And then your child goes to school the next day and wacks the kid who was always an inch or two shorter than most of his classmates. Thanks guys, I really enjoyed recess all those years. :( :p

The day you accept to be a parent, you accept to fail. :p

BRussell

11-25-2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Again, you could also divorce your wife for refusing to do the dishes. You could not divorce or leave your child for refusing to do your bidding. Different tools for different roles. I doubt that the only reason you don't hit your wife is because you could divorce her instead. You don't hit her because you know it's wrong to physically hurt another person to get them to do what you want.

But hitting does work - it gets their attention. For the past 5 years I've been a part time stay-at-home dad because my wife works part time and we don't do daycare. Parenting is really, really hard. And it can be very frustrating, because the fact is you can't control other people, including your kids. But you want something that works, and works now. Hitting fills that role. I just think that what happens is that you teach your child a lesson that you really don't want them to learn. You know how much kids copy their parents. They learn much more from copying what you do than from the lessons you try to directly teach them. They say everything you say, which is why you don't use bad language around them. You use good manner at the dinner table. You clean up after yourself so they learn to clean up after themselves. And guess what? If you hit them, they hit you back, and they hit other kids. They've learned a lesson from you.

If you're a spanker, how do you deal with that problem? Do you tell them it's wrong to hit others? Do you spank them if they hit someone? Do you tell them you're going to hit them but you don't want them to ever hit someone else? Do they listen?

Gon

11-25-2004, 03:42 PM

I have no kids of my own, being too young for that.

I firmly believe there are situations where the best 'educational' option is physical punishment. (A light one, I may add.) It's not necessary for every kid, and not for every situation. Trumptman and Powerdoc outline pretty well the situations where the method is best applied.

Gon

11-25-2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
You know how much kids copy their parents. They learn much more from copying what you do than from the lessons you try to directly teach them. ... And guess what? If you hit them, they hit you back, and they hit other kids. They've learned a lesson from you.You're talking like there is no difference between a spanking and hitting. That's not true. Other one is rare punishment that is announced in advance, performed in a ritual fashion, after exhausting other options, and connected with a clearly forbidden action or inaction. The other is personal, surprising, uncontrolled, fear-inducing violence. The kid doesn't know it's coming and can't prevent it by acting the right way.

trumptman

11-25-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
I doubt that the only reason you don't hit your wife is because you could divorce her instead. You don't hit her because you know it's wrong to physically hurt another person to get them to do what you want.

I understand your point, however the reality is that the roles of parent, child and spouse are not equal. If I left my wife in the car while I went into the store and she somehow died from heat exposure, they wouldn't claim it was neglect on my part. If my wife runs into a street, sticks her finger in an electric socket or jumps into a pool, the results of her actions are not tossed onto my shoulders.

Spouses are supposed to be partners and consider each other. They need to fulfill the needs of one another. If they cannot fulfill this role, then divorce can occur. Basically you don't have to resort to violence because you aren't responsible for the person and can choose to live apart from them if they desire to act in a manner or make choices you cannot live with. This simply is not true with a child.

But hitting does work - it gets their attention. For the past 5 years I've been a part time stay-at-home dad because my wife works part time and we don't do daycare. Parenting is really, really hard. And it can be very frustrating, because the fact is you can't control other people, including your kids. But you want something that works, and works now. Hitting fills that role. I just think that what happens is that you teach your child a lesson that you really don't want them to learn. You know how much kids copy their parents. They learn much more from copying what you do than from the lessons you try to directly teach them. They say everything you say, which is why you don't use bad language around them. You use good manner at the dinner table. You clean up after yourself so they learn to clean up after themselves. And guess what? If you hit them, they hit you back, and they hit other kids. They've learned a lesson from you.

Actually what they learn is that if someone cannot be reasoned with, and can cause you and themselves harm, escalating action to level that goes beyond the end of their nose is acceptable. I find this a totally valid lesson.

If you're a spanker, how do you deal with that problem? Do you tell them it's wrong to hit others? Do you spank them if they hit someone? Do you tell them you're going to hit them but you don't want them to ever hit someone else? Do they listen?

You deal with it just as you do all forms of aggression. You attempt to teach them context and hope it is well applied. Aggression isn't just spanking or hitting. Aggression can be snatching away a toy, refusal to share, yelling inappropriately, using certain verbal tones, pushing, etc.

One thing I find curious about folks who claim spanking causes hitting is that I never see children attempt to spank other children. I have seen children from both spanking and non-spanking parents bite, pinch, slap, hit, push other children and snatch items inappropriately. Yet I never see a child take another child and attempt to take them over the knee or even smack their butt in an attempt to provoke an action.

Of course the most interesting of these has to be biting because I've never seen a parent bite a child to bring about an action, yet I don't think I've ever encountered a child that hasn't resorted to biting when confronted with enough aggression from another child. (taking a snack, favorite toy, etc.)

Good discussion...

Nick

BRussell

11-25-2004, 05:42 PM

For some empirical research on the effects of corporal punishment, here's (http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002/) probably the best and most up-to-date review of all the research. The link also includes links to commentary by other psychologists who criticize the findings in one way or another. There's a psychologist named Baumrind in particular that has defended spanking, and she has a commentary. Here's a press summary (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html) with a decent summary of the findings.

It's a really good review of the issues. I teach a graduate learning and behavior course and assigned this paper just to get a good discussion about this going.

First, she does find that spanking works. It produces immediate compliance better than not spanking. But she also finds that a bunch of negative things are associated with it. One thing that I think is interesting is that spanking produces lower-levels of "internalization." In other words, kids who are spanked learn their lesson less well than kids who aren't. They're more likely to behave badly when they know they can't get caught than kids who aren't spanked.

Another interesting finding is that spanking is associated with child abuse. In other words, parents who spank are more likely to cross over into abusing their children than parents who don't spank. That's a good reason for drawing the line at "no hitting" period.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving all.

Gon

11-25-2004, 06:01 PM

One more thing about kids who bully other kids using physical force. Most of them are cowards at heart. The absolute best thing to stop that behavior is that the other kid retaliates immediately and decisively. That could turn into a fight, and the non-aggressor could lose, but very rarely there will be a second fight no matter how the first goes. The general message from teachers at the schools I have been in is that "it takes two to fight" and "it's wrong to hit back". If good kids believe that and act accordingly, that cultivates bullies from the rest.

I have a history of being harassed at school. That stopped when I was taught to fight. To date I never had to threaten with, much less use violence after that. My increased self confidence turned potential bullies away, and my increased understanding of the damage I could do stopped myself from being the aggressor. I also immediately got more friends, I could be more open and friendly with everyone in normal setting when I felt I was physically safe and in control no matter what the situation. It would have saved me a lot of grief if I would have learned to hold my own earlier.

midwinter

11-25-2004, 09:42 PM

This is an utterly fascinating discussion on a number of levels, but I think it's important to note that, if I'm reading them correctly, Nick and Powerdoc are not suggesting that children be beaten black and blue until the desired behavior is accomplished. A sharp, stinging slap on the butt or the thighs is more than not enough to get the point across, and as Powerdoc rightly pointed out, once that is associated properly in the child's mind, the threat itself is plenty.

The problem is not spanking as a method of discipline. The problem is that idiots can breed. Hell, we don't let people drive cars without a license and yet any horny 15 year olds can have a kid.

SQUÅSH

11-25-2004, 10:55 PM

I love all the touchy feely people. Enjoy your kids that run all over you as they get older. My guess is Trump believes a certain way not only because he feels that way, but because daily he deals with these touchy feely parents kids that are a complete nightmare at school.

He can't take away their xbox or tv, he just has to deal with the lamer kids and honestly 9x out of 10 the lamer parents. Being able to breathe is a gift that I'd be happy to take away from some of these touchy feely kids:err: I'm not saying you need to spank your kids, but they need real punishment other than a hug and please johnny be good and mama will get you cookies. I have a feeling some of you have cookie monsters...enjoy:lol:

Powerdoc

11-26-2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
This is an utterly fascinating discussion on a number of levels, but I think it's important to note that, if I'm reading them correctly, Nick and Powerdoc are not suggesting that children be beaten black and blue until the desired behavior is accomplished. A sharp, stinging slap on the butt or the thighs is more than not enough to get the point across, and as Powerdoc rightly pointed out, once that is associated properly in the child's mind, the threat itself is plenty.

The problem is not spanking as a method of discipline. The problem is that idiots can breed. Hell, we don't let people drive cars without a license and yet any horny 15 year olds can have a kid.

Thanks. I think you resumed it well. It's the threat who work, more than the spanking. Sometimes, one or two times per year, my child recieved a slap on the butt, and it's sufficiant for her to know, that I am able to keep my promises.
With my elder daughter spanking is useless or even the threat to spank, but others forms of punishments works way better, like interdiction of visiting friends.
The important point is that the kids respect your authority. The threat of a spank is a good one for little childs, because it's an immediate one. Small childs have no great skills of anticipation, the punishment has to bee immediate, otherwise the little childs do not understand, and simply think that you don't love them anymore, because they will not connect anymore the punition and the reason of that punition.

midwinter

11-26-2004, 02:11 AM

Powerdoc:

yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....

stupider...likeafox

11-26-2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
as Powerdoc rightly pointed out, once that is associated properly in the child's mind, the threat itself is plenty.

I'm not sure I see why threatening violence is so much better than violence. Surely the child is still learning that violence is an effective control technique to be used to ensure the compliance of people who are smaller than you.

stupider...likeafox

11-26-2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Gon
One more thing about kids who bully other kids using physical force. Most of them are cowards at heart. The absolute best thing to stop that behavior is that the other kid retaliates immediately and decisively.

This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.

But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically.

Gon

11-26-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This isn't really the topic, but simply standing up for yourself will often prevent being bullied. Actually attacking them, either pre-emptively or in 'self-defence' isn't really necessary. As you seem to realise the knowledge that you won't stand for it is enough to prevent further bullying.First, that self confidence needed to 'simply stand up for yourself' doesn't come from a void. If you are ready to fight, you automatically have that confidence - you are prepared for the extreme option, so anything in between is easier.

Second, the bully can be stupid enough not to sense your resolve, or think you're faking and carry on. Then you should hurt them. No amount of assertiveness and self confidence alone will stop you from taking a beating at that point. Only action will.

Gon

11-26-2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
But more importantly your violent solution doesn't really stop the bully from moving on to bully someone else, so I'm not sure how much of a solution it is. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for for girls or much weaker boys defending themselves from stronger kids, or alternatively for those who are bullied primarily non-physically. On the contrary, as I wrote in the first post, this deters most bullies because they are looking for a victim, not a fight. If you fight for real, even if you lose, there will rarely be a second fight. A kid putting up a serious fight is just too much trouble to hassle.

To a large degree, it also stops the bullies from moving on to other kids. The more secure a kid feels, the easier it is for him to defend others and to voice disapproval of said bullying, without being suppressed by threat from the bullies. Bullies are a minority, good kids are a majority.

trumptman

11-26-2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Powerdoc:

yes. One of the reasons I was spanked only rarely as a child was because, somehow, my parents were able to instill in me a deep and abiding respect for their authority, and so the idea of doing something that would cross them was anathema to me. Or at least, getting CAUGHT doing something....

It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.

Nick

Powerdoc

11-26-2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
It might have been because of the way they followed up the spanking. With my childrn, we often call them back over a few minutes later, counsel them again on what they were doing wrong and the dangers associated with it, and then kiss and hug them up until the crying stops.

Nick

We are doing the same thing.

Shawn J : education depends of the kids. Some kids will obey naturally, and you the classical punitions will work fine for them. Others will react differently. Now, to be clear, I do not spend hours threatening my kids. Most of the time, some explanations works, but sometimes child test you.
When you will be a parent, you will discover by yourself what work with your kids. I don't think there is an unique recepie.

BRussell

11-26-2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover. Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.

But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.

Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.

Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?

Powerdoc

11-26-2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Right. That's what I find interesting. People act like not hitting your kids is some kind of bizarre extra-terrestrial behavior. Powerdoc is talking about how only these weirdo psychiatrists raise kids like that. Others are talking about how it must severely screw up kids not to be hit.

But I think most of the bad kids come from the lazy parents, and I'd be willing to bet that the lazier the parent, the more spankings they use. I bet there's some truth in the stereotype of the parents who every day feed their kids McDs and then sit them in front of Springer, and swat 'em as their primary parental intervention.

Not that all parents who spank are lazy, but I'd bet that the frequency of spanking correlates pretty highly with, say, the frequency of TV watching. I'd bet spoiling and spanking go together more often than spoiling and not spanking. And I'd bet that the good parents like Powerdoc and trumptman would be just as good if they didn't spank.

Another thing: even the folks here who support spanking say they almost never do it. Then how can that be so completely and totally different from really never doing it?

Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong. Your childs are not your patients. Childs do not want perfects parents, they want parents who love them, and who guide them.
My childs know that I may give them a small tap if I am very angry, but they also know, that I will never hurt them seriously and that I love them. I don't think that a small tap per year will kill them. There is much more violence between my two daughters, than between US (the parents) and them.

I don't pretend to be a role model parent, but I think that parents must be naturals. Parents must show their good and bad sides to their childs. I have absolutely no taste for authoritie, but raising kids obliged me to do it. Some parents have a natural authoritie, and make the childs obey easily. Others aren't.
Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration.

trumptman

11-26-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think you guys just don't know any better. That's how you were raised-- you were socialized into accepting smacking your kids around when they act up-- and now as parents that's how you discipline your own kids. But from what I understand, you guys seem to think that you only have two options: hit your kids or be a pushover. My parents were pretty strict in a lot of ways, as they quickly and consistently established their authority. They made it clear how they expected me to behave and punished any serious deviations from those expectations. It made me despise authority later on, as parents shouldn't quite wield as much control when the kids older, but there are alternatives to hitting. So please, make your kids hate authority. :D

I disagree. Obviously as a teacher I use no corporal punishment. However the reality is that often, the result is less than impressive. There still exists a large lack of performance. I can get a child to stop an action in some scenarios, but truthfully that is about it. Stopping does not mean they have altered any future decision making, or that they now hold a different view regarding their unacceptable actions. Schools just end up kicking kids out of school, referring them to ridiculously expensive special education classes (growing at record rates), dispensing medicines they helped refer the parent to get, or calling the police at ridiculously young ages since the police are less likely to get in trouble for laying hands on a child who can show no desire to control themselves. Do any research in these areas and you will see the massive, and explosive growth of medications, special education, and scenarios where younger are handled by the police.

I do not spank my child to avoid being thought of as a push over. I spank the child because fear of the spanking is something they can understand and there are scenarios where they cannot understand what it is they SHOULD fear. How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later)

Now I meet plenty of parents that deal with said scenarios by basically caging their child. Every plug has a cover, every door handle a cover, everything triple locked, and they pretty much don't allow them outside. I find that a totally unacceptable solution for a number of reasons. One, it might work for their children, but my children handled all these "kidproof" items with frightening quickness.

They cracked all the knobcovers off the door. They watched anyone pull any one of the plug covers off just one time and had it solved. As I mentioned previously a five foot tall pool latch is mearly another problem to be solved. My youngest son won't accept "fake"(about ten bad dups given to us on a ring from the local locksmith) car keys because he truthfully already knows which key on which keychain will start each and every car. He will find a way to get them off the five feet from the ground key ring, go out back and attempt to start the car after unlocking the door with the proper key. Did I mention he was doing this while being two?

The second reason is simply put that a home shouldn't feel like a prison. Never letting a child outside, walking them on a leash like I see some parents do, drugging them, etc no more internalizes any sort of learning than spanking does. I also find many of those scenarios much more humiliating and abusive than a tap or two on the bum. Also I can't imagine scenarios where you spank a child much past say, seven or eight (of course my oldest is only five) because the reasoning and understanding at that point are pretty strong and hopefully the patterns, practices and habits you have done with your child have a good hold, some deep roots.

Nick

BRussell

11-26-2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
How does a two year old understand electricity shocking them to death, or that the cars that they cannot see on the street 98% of the time from their perspective might run them down. How can a two year old understand what death truly means when they simply don't have the ability to comprehend it yet, or even really abstract information. (Cars are not here now but could be later) In my experience (I also have a 5 year-old and also a 1-year-old) you do have to keep your toddler out of danger through your own vigilance. I can't believe a toddler is going to fear a spanking when that ball rolls into the street. They're going to run after it because they're caught up in the moment and just don't have the cognitive ability to think about consequences. If they can't think about the car, why would they be able to think about the spanking? That's why, up to a certain age (say, age 3) I think you just have to watch them to make sure they don't get hurt. You have to do whatever it takes to keep the poisonous stuff out of their reach. You have to make sure they don't stick their hand on the stove. Then at a certain point, they can understand and learn what's dangerous.

BRussell

11-26-2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Me and my wife have seen those weirdos female psychiatrist educating their childs, and we where confused by what we saw. Both kids had a very bad temper. These women where following the Dolto guidelines and did not tried to be normal. I mean, they react to their kids in an artificial way. Sometimes, if you want to speak loud to your childs, just speak loud, don't refer to psychanalytic texts all the daylong. I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.

Now if I mentionned the psychiatre case, it's because I was worried that you said that every parent that spank their childs should go in jail. It's an over exageration. I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?

Powerdoc

11-27-2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't disagree, but I don't think that has anything to do with spanking. Most of the popular parenting books, in the US anyway, recommend spanking. Example: My cousin bought some Biblical parenting book, and then made a switch out of a stick. Almost from birth she was following her infants around switching them when they did the wrong thing. I think that's just as unnatural as any method I've ever heard of.

I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?

1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.

2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship.

trumptman

11-27-2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
I just think it's something to think about: Why is it illegal to hit anyone except your kids? Nick has some explanations of the differences, but I don't really buy them. I think it's an inconsistency. Fifty years ago in the US a wife would have been laughed out of court if she complained to the police that her husband was hitting her. It was considered perfectly normal and within the husband's rights, just like child-spanking is today. The exact same kinds of arguments were made. What's the difference between wife-hitting back then and child-hitting today?

Actually it isn't an inconsistancy. In the period you talk about, women were not considered equals of the man. It was not one equal with full rights hitting another equal with full rights. The law declared that a man had to assume responsibility for his wife. Under the law the woman was no different than a child.

The change has not been in our views toward spanking but in the woman's legal status. She is now an equal with the man and the man has no responsibility to insure her behavior.

As an aside you do know that women are the largest percentage of child abusers in the United States.

Now there are those that argue that children should have many more rights than they do now as well. Some even argue that children ought to have the right to vote since it seems they are often disenfranchised by not being a voting block. It will be interesting to see how this resolves in the future.

Nick

trumptman

11-27-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Is that dude's books about just speaking to your kids? If not:

It would again seem like you think the only options are hitting your child or being a pushover, which is exactly what a parent who "just speaks" to his or her children does. A pushover is a parent who never backs up his or her oral threats with actual punishments. "Just" speaking? Yeesh! Discipline requires tangible rewards and benefits, not just a verbal admonishment. Both sides of this debate understand that. You hit your kids. We don't. (or won't in the future/ haven't been hit in the past.)

Actually what many members of "your side" of the debate don't seem to understand is that the people who argue about internalization of learning would still find you at fault for using many of the methods you endorse. Extrinsic rewards are considered harmful to the thinking of a child and their decision making ability. Heck they are probably the root cause of societal harm according to good socialists like yourself. You don't study and get good grades because Mom or Dad are going to give you twenty dollars per "A", you do so for nothing more than the joy of learning. In fact there are many that argue that when you give extrinsic rewards for matters that should be intrinsic, you are doing serious harm because you warp the development of those intrinsic values and you also reduce the interest in the intrinsic values.

Shouldn't a child clean their room because of the personal joy they feel with the satisfaction of completing said task and also because staying in a clean room is much more satisfying than living in a messy room?

We may have discovered the basis for your entire belief system. Maybe your politics are just a form of rebellion against the extreme controlling you complained about from your parents that they exercised via extrinsic controls. The only option of gaining your own control in these matters would be to be willing to begin forgoing and decrying those extrinsic rewards. (I'm going to simply not desire that fifty dollars being offered.) It would explain a lot of your actions and why you don't understand that those of us not raised that way don't need the same sort of rebellion to gain our control.

You keep claiming it is about how we were raised. I think it could be much more about how you were raised. Loathing of material items is very common among children of well-off parents who use said items to control their children. Perhaps it is you who are the damaged goods. :p (That tongue is firmly in cheek, or in your ear if you prefer)

Please realize that the only form of child raising "endorsed" by the experts that condemn spanking is what Powerdoc has spoken about. Tonton and yourself have brought up other matters that, while they are not spanking, are considered harmful as well. Anything that detracts from internalization of learning and the development of intrinsic values is considered harmful and possibly abusive. Only BRussell has been most consistant in this matter and rightly so since he likely has the deepest understanding. He should speak up a bit more on the matters you and Ton have brought up as well too.

Nick

EDIT: Before we get into an argument about whether you were talking about extrinsic rewards you did say they had to be "tangible" which according to every definition I have ever read means outside oneself in roughly 99% of instances.

Tangible
1. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
2. Possible to touch.
3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
4. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
5. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

Powerdoc

11-27-2004, 02:17 PM

BRussell

11-27-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
1) well I think that Dolto's book are not very popular in US. In france it's a form of modern bible for parents. There is very nice input in those books, but it's an utopia to believe that everything can be solved just by speaking with them.
The problems with books, is that the parents do not think by themselves and just follow guidelines coming from others. I think that you have to do your own parental experiences. Of course advices are welcome, but it's just advices : like you mentionned it's not because a biblical book told you to have a stick that you should do it.
I think on this issue, if parents act in a normal way, they will be good parents.

2) I don't buy this parallel : wife is my equal, childs are under my responsabilitie until their majority where they will become my equal. If you make a law, that put you in jail for single tap on the butt, all parents will become potential criminals including you and I. If the child is worried by a punition you made, he can just report a false hit, and then you will go to jail. Welcome into the Orwellian child dictatorship. 1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0935111204/qid=1101586138/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9721929-6186502?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.

2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.

Powerdoc

11-27-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
1) I've never heard of this Dolto book, but you said earlier it's a psychoanalytic parenting book? I'm trying to figure that one out. What, do they recommend sex with mom and then kill the father? A book that seems to be based on good behavioral principles is this one: SOS help for parents (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0935111204/qid=1101586138/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9721929-6186502?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Of course it's ridiculous to exactly follow some book, but I doubt very many people really do that.

2) I don't think a "tap on the butt" should send someone to jail. I just think the laws ought to apply equally. If what you do to your child would send you to prison if you did it to a stranger, for example.

1) Dolto made some importants psychologic research with kids. The problem, is that many parents in France, refer to her work like a sort of bible. There is great idears inside, she was the first to speak of the rights of children. Unfornately too many people following her teaching have becomed pushover parents.

2) glad to hear that. However the last time I did a tap on the butt to a woman, her husband send me a fist in my face, and I loose all my front teeths. Thanks to my dentist I am still able to do that : :D

Powerdoc

11-27-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You make it sound like not hitting your kids requires some big sacrifice-- like being a vegan or something. I don't really look at it that way. It really is as simple as just deciding not to discipline children using violence, for all its problems: low-levels of internalization, legitimating violence to solve problems, etc. And since I was raised in a non-violent home, where my father didn't smack around my mother or me, it's an even easier choice. I guess the temptation will be there if the child refuses to obey since it's difficult to completely socialize out violent tendencies. But it shouldn't be hard to come up with non-violent solutions like taking away privileges or whatnot. The challenge of course is applying punishments consistently and being able to enforce them, admittedly a challenge in the busy lives of Americans. The French have no excuses! :p

Good for you, I respect your ideals. I just say that with little childs, that do not seem to listen to you, the great ideals tend to vanish.
Anyway you will discover this by yourself. But don't be hurried, childs can wait, have fun, you just turned 21 ...

midwinter

11-27-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You make it sound like not hitting your kids requires some big sacrifice-- like being a vegan or something. I don't really look at it that way. It really is as simple as just deciding not to discipline children using violence, for all its problems: low-levels of internalization, legitimating violence to solve problems, etc. And since I was raised in a non-violent home, where my father didn't smack around my mother or me, it's an even easier choice. I guess the temptation will be there if the child refuses to obey since it's difficult to completely socialize out violent tendencies. But it shouldn't be hard to come up with non-violent solutions like taking away privileges or whatnot. The challenge of course is applying punishments consistently and being able to enforce them, admittedly a challenge in the busy lives of Americans. The French have no excuses! :p

You make it sound like smacking a kid is the first resort.

Not Unlike Myself

11-27-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Oh look, someone on the internet is breaking up a sentence into individual words and separating them with periods. I've never seen that before, that's really cool.

It's true that the severity of punishment increases the learning of an avoidance response. Take some rats, shock them when they go near one side of the cage, and the rats that get the most painful shock will show the greatest behavioral change. Yup.

A couple of problems though:

1. You can't use high-pain punishment with a child, because you might injure them. Or if you can, you're sick. And if you don't use high-intensity pain, then what's the point? You might as well just use time out or take away their favorite toy. If, like most people, you say you draw the line at mild hitting, why not draw it at no hitting? Isn't that a clearer line? Or barring that, how do you justify not going all out and just torturing the child with lit cigarettes? If it's not about morality, but rather effectiveness, then the more pain, the more effectiveness. IMO people only use mild hitting because they instinctually know it's wrong in the first place.

2. The goal of parenting is internalization. You want the kid to act appropriately not only when you can catch and smack them, but also when you're not there, and also when they grow up. You want them to learn a lesson, not just be controlled by you. And the way to get internalization is to let them learn lessons on their own, and to use the least amount of coercion possible.

3. Kids do internalize one lesson from hitting: That the use of physical violence to get someone to do what you want is appropriate. How come we don't allow a husband to hit a wife? Or a boss to hit an employee? It's because we believe it's immoral. And yet most parents hit their kids. It's inconsistent, and sends inconsistent messages to kids.

Lets play the same then. Yeah, believe me, looking cool in front of 'cyber peers' is high on my list. Let me straighten your Uber-dorkness out, flake.

1) Nowhere was I arguing that by increasing punishment beyond reasonable levels was acceptable.

2) Your goals of parenting are none of my business, and you haven' a clue what MY goals are.

3) If you wanna play the anti-violent modern hippie that's fine. Your non confrontational ass will be the one in my rear view mirror getting flipped off. No one here is arguing that husbands should hit wives, bosses hit employees etc. And morallity doesn't even factor into the discussion. You can't leap from 'discipline' to abuse. The research and facts aren't there. Just your ego.

So in returrn Mr. right, why don't you go put your kids in time out for growing up backwards. After all, alone in time out is going to be good practice for how alone they will be in the real world.

KingOfSomewhereHot

11-28-2004, 07:39 AM

"Thank you sir! May I have another?!"

sammi jo

11-28-2004, 04:08 PM

Discipline. The only real discipline is self-discipline. Self-discipline is key to civilized society, and self discipline can NEVER, EVER be achieved when physical violence is used as a first resort. Sorry, all you dysfunctional bible-belters, but you're wrong, so 100% wrong. Get out of the darkness.

New

11-28-2004, 05:50 PM

wow, I only saw this thread now...

Where I'm from. You know, Norway. That top of the world, scandinavian, best-place-on-earth-and-we've-got-oil-too... Corporal punishment is ofcourse outlawed. Spanking your child is behavior associated with previous generations.

I'm father of a four year old, and step father of a twelve year old, and it has never occured to me to "spank" any of them. If I did, I'd consider myself a failure as a parent. I'm an adult for christ sake.

Parenting is hard. I've had to hold my step-son firmly on occasions to prevent him from using force, or break things in anger. Although breaking things in anger can be a good lesson in itself. Kids test out limits. that's how they learn. The reactions they receive influence how they will test out other limits in the future.
My children know we would never hurt them. There is no element of fear in how we bring them up. They are both well balanced, fine kids. With strong opinions and good self-esteem. The twelve year old is top of his class in almost everything.

My experience is that kids learn best by example. Try to count how many times you applaud your kid for doing something right in comparison to how often you point out that they do something wrong. Statistics show that an average kid gets four times as much negative as postive attention by their parents. And we wonder why kids end up with low self-esteem...?

BRussell

11-28-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by New
Where I'm from. You know, Norway. That top of the world, scandinavian, best-place-on-earth-and-we've-got-oil-too... Corporal punishment is ofcourse outlawed. Spanking your child is behavior associated with previous generations. Yeah but because your kids aren't disciplined like ours, that's why you have much higher rates of social problems like violence and unwanted pregnancies, etc., compared to the US.

midwinter

11-28-2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by New
I'm father of a four year old, and step father of a twelve year old, and it has never occured to me to "spank" any of them. If I did, I'd consider myself a failure as a parent. I'm an adult for christ sake.

Is anyone here suggesting spanking a 12 year-old? My sense of this discussion--and I may be wrong about this--is that those here who are advocating spanking are only really talking about young children, say toddlers through about 4 or 5. And no one here is advocating the walloping of children.

tonton

11-28-2004, 09:12 PM

But how do you define exactly when to stop? Some parents would definitely get into a pattern of disciplinary practice, and then they wouldn't know what to do as their child gets older, except keep hitting them, harder each time their spanking doesn't have an effect.

Should there being a law that says spanking is okay until age 5, as long as there is no visible bruising? How about that? If that's the law, then I'm sure Trumptman and PowerDoc would have no problem following it, according to what they're saying. But something tells me they would oppose such a law. Hmm...

Meanwhile I've never spanked my daughter. Ever. She just started first grade this year, at one of the top schools in Hong Kong (and it's very competitive here). Her first report card came in on Saturday. Top student in the class (and I'm proud as punch).

I do think that parents who find spanking necessary are just too lazy or too stubborn to find an alternative.

midwinter

11-28-2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by tonton
But how do you define exactly when to stop?

Doesn't US law already deal with what is child abuse and what is not? If my 3 year-old kid were to, say, climb up into my china cabinet and throw all the plates on the floor, if I give her a single slap on the thigh or butt, is that abuse? What if, when I was sixteen and was physically larger, stronger, and faster than my father, we got into a fist-fight that I started? Was he abusing me?

For me, it boils down to this: for me to discipline my own young child in more or less the same way I might discipline a pet (a sharp slap that makes a worse noise than anything else) is not abuse of either.

SQUÅSH

11-28-2004, 11:27 PM

I think regardless of spanking or not. Good parents are good parents, and bad parents are bad parents. I believe you'd find the amount of bad children are in direct relation to the bad parents, whether they spank or not. I'm not sure the spanking i see these people referring to, which i incurred as a child changed me one way or another.

I still enjoy a good spanking once and awhile:wow:

The one thing i hate more than anything is people trying to say their way is better than others. As a parent it's a choice of how you choose to raise your children, and no one in these posts is talking about spankings like child abuse. i find it offensive people even refer to it as that. I never felt abused once when i was spanked, as a matter a fact i probably deserved worse most the time. many times i felt like i got off easy.:D

BRussell

11-28-2004, 11:52 PM

More grist (http://www.nospank.net/n-h93.htm) for the mill:

At issue -- and the source of headlines and jaw-flapping across Canada -- was the case of an American tourist, David Peterson, who was caught red-handed in a Canadian parking lot last fall as he gave a spanking to his 5-year-old daughter.

An outraged Canadian witness called 911 and confronted the overwrought father with the news that it is against the law to spank in Canada.

It isn't, exactly. But London, Ontario, police charged Peterson with assault, and he spent a night in jail. He returned voluntarily this week, according to news reports, to stand trial and clear his name. In a not-guilty verdict rendered today, Ontario provincial Judge John Menzies agreed that the father's punishment fit the daughter's crime and therefore met Canada's legal tests of appropriate discipline.

As Peterson rummaged in the front of the car, Rachel and William began fighting in the back seat, and Rachel pushed her little brother out the rear door onto the asphalt. As she began to close the door on her smaller sibling, Peterson testified, he warned her to watch for William's fingers. She ignored the warning, he said, and proceeded to do exactly what her father had feared.

William wailed in pain, the testimony continued, as his father struggled with an automatic door to free his son's trapped digits.

Peterson testified that he first attempted to spank Rachel inside the car, but that she resisted. So he took her outside, where--upping the punishment to a bare-bottomed thrashing because of her defiance--he pulled down her pants and underwear and spanked her "very hard" four to six times, he said; the witness put the number at eight or more times.

Not Unlike Myself

11-28-2004, 11:55 PM

Not sure about giving a bear bottom spanking, but all in all that doesn't seem too disturbing. (at least the spanking part)

The fact that he was detained for this is disturbing though.

New

11-29-2004, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah but because your kids aren't disciplined like ours, that's why you have much higher rates of social problems like violence and unwanted pregnancies, etc., compared to the US.

:lol: right...

New

11-29-2004, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Not sure about giving a bear bottom spanking, but all in all that doesn't seem too disturbing. (at least the spanking part)

The fact that he was detained for this is disturbing though.

He would be in Norway as well. He would probably even be fined.

giant

11-29-2004, 10:24 AM

Spanking is a simple solution for simple people.

To answer the question in the thread title, discipline to me means self-control, so self-discipline is the first thing I think of when hearing the word.

trumptman

11-29-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by New
wow, I only saw this thread now...

Where I'm from. You know, Norway. That top of the world, scandinavian, best-place-on-earth-and-we've-got-oil-too... Corporal punishment is ofcourse outlawed. Spanking your child is behavior associated with previous generations.

Actually Norway has had rising levels of immigration, the xenophobia associated with it and ever higher levels of violent crime for several years now. Considering you are talking about a country that isn't as large as some cities in the United States, it doesn't do to bad.

I'm father of a four year old, and step father of a twelve year old, and it has never occured to me to "spank" any of them. If I did, I'd consider myself a failure as a parent. I'm an adult for christ sake.

You still have time to be considered a failure, I assure you.:lol:

Parenting is hard. I've had to hold my step-son firmly on occasions to prevent him from using force, or break things in anger. Although breaking things in anger can be a good lesson in itself. Kids test out limits. that's how they learn. The reactions they receive influence how they will test out other limits in the future.
My children know we would never hurt them. There is no element of fear in how we bring them up. They are both well balanced, fine kids. With strong opinions and good self-esteem. The twelve year old is top of his class in almost everything.

So you admit to having to physically handle your child when they have gotten too out of control, a grown child at that. I wouldn't be boasting that a 12 year old, one who can easily reason why they should exert control of themselves, still needs to be physically controlled. If this lack of control is also exhibited in front of you, I would find the trend and implications quite troubling.

My experience is that kids learn best by example. Try to count how many times you applaud your kid for doing something right in comparison to how often you point out that they do something wrong. Statistics show that an average kid gets four times as much negative as postive attention by their parents. And we wonder why kids end up with low self-esteem...?

Perhaps they end up with low self-esteem because like you believe they are born perfect and corrupted by society. I know I would be depressed if I had that view about myself.

Nick

New

11-29-2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually Norway has had rising levels of immigration, the xenophobia associated with it and ever higher levels of violent crime for several years now. Considering you are talking about a country that isn't as large as some cities in the United States, it doesn't do to bad.

Do you know something about Norway or did you just google this up? Why are you bringing immigration into this? If you actually have some knowledge here, I'd love to discusse these issues with you.
I also hope you recognized the "humorous/ironic" tone in that first paragraph.

You still have time to be considered a failure, I assure you.:lol: I'm not sure I like your tone.

So you admit to having to physically handle your child when they have gotten too out of control, a grown child at that. I wouldn't be boasting that a 12 year old, one who can easily reason why they should exert control of themselves, still needs to be physically controlled. If this lack of control is also exhibited in front of you, I would find the trend and implications quite troubling.
I'm a bit shocked by you post this, but I'll let it pass.
Firstly, all children have to be "physically handled". As in "touched" you know. Unless You've come up with a way to change diapers by telekinesis.
Secondly, without getting in to details, you clearly missunderstood my post. The physical holding I was talking about did not occure ate the age of twelve, but goes a few years back. this is as I said my step-child, and filling in for a missing father is not the easiest thing. That's all I will say about it.

Perhaps they end up with low self-esteem because like you believe they are born perfect and corrupted by society. I know I would be depressed if I had that view about myself.I don't believe children are corrupted by society. Where the hell did you get that idea?
But what do you believe? What builds and breaks down self-esteem? Any thoughts?

trumptman

11-29-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by New
Do you know something about Norway or did you just google this up? Why are you bringing immigration into this? If you actually have some knowledge here, I'd love to discusse these issues with you.
I also hope you recognized the "humorous/ironic" tone in that first paragraph.

I thought I returned that tone a bit with the city-size comparison. I did look up the information about Norway and violent crime in comparison with other countries. Of course the U.S. compares pretty badly, especially the crime ridden urban centers. However the United States is a profoundly diverse country as well. I mention that because Europe has started having some immigration issues as well lately and amazingly enough, the utopian ideals that are in place before it don't seem to work quite so well. It is very easy to arrive at and enforce consensus when everyone is similar and has shared attributes. Japan and Europe toss around comments and ideals regarding race that would often be considered profoundly racist here in the United States. So while Norway is going somewhat well for now, it will be interesting to see how it holds up over the long run. Especially with record numbers of Eastern Europeans, and Islamic immigrants coming into the country.

I'm not sure I like your tone.

I added a smiley. It is pretty hard to judge a job half done wouldn't you say? My oldest child is in kindergarten. His teacher has been teaching over 20 years and gave our son the compliment at report card conferences of noting that he was "the brightest child she had ever taught." But the reality is that he is only five. I also cannot assume that can insure any sort of long term results. It is a promising start though.

I'm a bit shocked by you post this, but I'll let it pass.
Firstly, all children have to be "physically handled". As in "touched" you know. Unless You've come up with a way to change diapers by telekinesis.
Secondly, without getting in to details, you clearly missunderstood my post. The physical holding I was talking about did not occure ate the age of twelve, but goes a few years back. this is as I said my step-child, and filling in for a missing father is not the easiest thing. That's all I will say about it.

Please understand that all I attempted to do in the slightest way was reflect back a bit of the rather harsh judgement that you reserved for others. I pictured you doing no more than basically hugging the child tight so they would regain control of themselves and stop attempting to break whatever it was they were trying to break. I have no doubt that filling in for the missing father is very demanding. However again, if I wanted to be judgemental like yourself, I could simply ask about the missing father, why the mother would choose such a man, what does it say that she choose him and then you, what can I claim about the son who desires to break things out of anger, etc. It's pretty easy to starting judging others is my point.

As the saying goes about rocks and glass houses...

I don't believe children are corrupted by society. Where the hell did you get that idea?

The ideal is the foundation of much of the thinking that claims things like spanking is wrong. Think about the claims made here. The belief is that humans are in no way violent, and that spanking teaches them to be so. I just ran that thread back into the spool as it were. The thinking being shown here is that left to their own devices, children would basically show little or no violence. Violence is a behavior they imitate, not something that is innate. That is the claim here.

As both a parent and teacher, I've yet to encounter a parent that claims to teach their child to be selfish, lie, etc. Yet most children have trouble with accepting responsibility for their actions, and telling the truth regarding them. Children are not born perfect.

There are also children who require different levels and types of involvement and action. Some are more willing to assume risk. How can one hold that the same methods should work for all people in all circumstances. If you never have to hug your younger child tight does that mean you were more successful with them than with the older one?

Some children are so responsive to verbal cues that the simple act of sharpening your verbal tone or withholding approval to them is as mentally crushing as if you slugged them in the mouth. Would you suggest that we pass laws against witholding approval or sharp tones?

There are other children that you could yell right in their face and watch them think it a tremendous game. They enjoy aggression, heightened emotion, and the rushes associated with them. They might think that your unwillingness to engage them in this manner means that you really don't care about them.

Different strokes for different folks as they say.

Nick

New

11-29-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Please understand that all I attempted to do in the slightest way was reflect back a bit of the rather harsh judgement that you reserved for others. I pictured you doing no more than basically hugging the child tight so they would regain control of themselves and stop attempting to break whatever it was they were trying to break. I have no doubt that filling in for the missing father is very demanding. However again, if I wanted to be judgemental like yourself, I could simply ask about the missing father, why the mother would choose such a man, what does it say that she choose him and then you, what can I claim about the son who desires to break things out of anger, etc. It's pretty easy to starting judging others is my point.

I really don't think I passed any judgement at all. I posted what my country's law actually say, and how I reason in the upbringing of my own children.
I really don't see anything in my post that should that should offend anybody. Maybe you read something into it that wasn't there.

In concern to how children are born. It's the old discussion about what your born with, and what you get later. Personally I think both are factors, but socialization is by far most important. A child is in a large part a product of its environment. This environment will color a childs achievements and failures. Certainly the the factors are many. But basic statistics will still tell you how general social factors affect you.
The question boils down to how the "spanking" facor will affect your child. In the upbringing of my I've excluded that factor. I wish I could exclude a lot of other factors as well, but most are beyond my control...
:)