I agree that you should not disipline a child for a temper tantrum. The child usually is getting his hard feelings out about something unrelated to what they seem to be mad/upset about - they can be embarrasing when in public, but I usually can take the child off somewhere private and wait until they finish venting.
My theory is that if you stop them from tantruming, then they end up with repressed emotions that come out in other ways later. You definitely should not let them influence decision making via tantrums, but letting them run their course instead of stopping them seems a lot better to me.
Don't agree entirely. They also have to understand what is and what is not an acceptable reaction to something. Often tantrums are for no good reason, not even fatigue. We will sometime give a timeout if the tantrum is ridiculous. My daughter will be taught to understand that screaming and kicking and flipping out is not acceptable just because the answer is "no" to something.
I have a 2 year old baby. I don't spank him and I have no desire to.
I haven't had any problems controlling his behavior. When you give children options that are acceptable to you and them, there is no need to hit.
If he wants to eat ice cream on the sofa and I don't want him to, I tell him I don't want him to do that because he will spill, and I take him back to the table. If he insists I give him a choice, 'you can climb on the sofa or you can eat your ice cream at the table.' He chooses what he wants to do. This is a simple example, but it works for everything.
I can't really imagine an instance where I would want to hit or threaten him.
And children who are abused and even spanked are more antisocial, they are more likely to be depressed, less successful in school, and more likely to hit or abuse their parents when they are elderly. But if they do, it won't mean they don't love you, right?
Choices are good, but they don't always work. We use choices like that as well, but sometimes a spank is the only way. When your child scream "no" at you a few times over and refuses to sit on time out, then what are you going to do...give him a choice? Don't give me the "children will be depressed" bullshit. Spanking, done correctly and without anger, will not cause that. Period.
Some articles from a search on google scholar. In a nutshell, the research on corporal punishment suggests it's better not to do it.
Yes it does. I teach a learning and memory class, and one time a few years ago we read this article along with the commentaries on it. Here's a summary.
Quote:
While conducting the meta-analysis, which included 62 years of collected data, Gershoff looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse).
Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child.
They find that spanking does "work:" It is associated with compliance on the part of the child. But I think the most interesting other finding is that it is negatively associated with internalization - in other words, kids don't learn from being spanked.
The other issue is that spanking doesn't have much effect one way or the other, long-term. Sure, it has some negative effects, but not very big correlations. That's also consistent with most of the other findings in this area - small differences in parenting techniques don't have much influence on how kids turn out.
I also thought it was interesting that the biggest correlation they found was between spanking and abuse. In other words, the parents who spank were also the ones who were actually abusive. I'm sure all the parents who spank will say they aren't abusive, but the correlation is there.
we spank, but only use it as the last resort and of several different punishments. we have a 4 and 2 year old. haven't spanked the 2 year old. they need to be able to communicate and fully understand what you are saying. we use nose in the corner, time out, witholding things like tv, computer, dvd, candy, desserts etc. the BIG thing is the two parents work together as a team, follow through is key. look at the 911 nanny she has good insights.
we don't spank the 2 year old, limited things for her. nose in the corner time out etc. now the older one, we spank but VERY infrequently. what ever you do it's more important that both parents agree and not fight each other. i once used tobassco sauce on my son when he had "filth mouth" worked great i only had to do that 2 times and then show the bottle to him and he'd calm right down. now my new wife thinks that was cruel--. but says her mom used soap--now she says after many years at least the tobassco is a food the key is for it to work and you shouldn't have to use it but a few times over the years.. the idea is to choose something you only have to do rarely. and use many other techniques ratcheting things up a bit. things work for my 2 y/o but not my 4 y/o each is different. my 4 y/o is very stubborn and head strong and needs a much firmer hand, my 2 y/o works with nose inthe corner and time out.
the idea is stop the bad behaviour, for our 4 year old a "good star chart" that she made up worked for misbehaving in church, it works ...so far. and she wants those stars. she gets stars when she is avoids bad behavior but also gets them for positive things like compassion, helping others and thoughtfulness. we also praise 5:1 meaning for everthing we say she is doing wrong we also during the day tell her at least 5 things she is doing well. the least little things need praise too. don't lose opportunies to praise good behavior....but we also don't feel our children do no wrong like some other permissive parents we know.
children need guidance, learn to say no, and don't give in to everything, pick your battles.
Choices are good, but they don't always work. We use choices like that as well, but sometimes a spank is the only way. When your child scream "no" at you a few times over and refuses to sit on time out, then what are you going to do...give him a choice? Don't give me the "children will be depressed" bullshit. Spanking, done correctly and without anger, will not cause that. Period.
A little bit of depression is good. Anger and aggression are good too, within limits. The mistake of the quoted reports is that they think a prozac-stabilized life is the ideal behavior. It's not. The huge amount of people on anti-depressants these days is a worrying figure: might it be possible to reduce by making kids learn to control all of their emotions, instead of just a saccharine subset of them?
When your child runs out into the street, are you going to stop and give them choices? There are times when you need immediate, unquestioning obedience from a child. Spanking can help you achieve that. As others have said, children and situations are different, and spanking is but one tool. Would you try to fix an entire car with only a 13mm box end wrench? Is the 13mm box end wrench really good at what it does in the right context? You bet. Consistency, proper limits, and discipling out of love are all much more important than spanking.
Don't agree entirely. They also have to understand what is and what is not an acceptable reaction to something. Often tantrums are for no good reason, not even fatigue. We will sometime give a timeout if the tantrum is ridiculous. My daughter will be taught to understand that screaming and kicking and flipping out is not acceptable just because the answer is "no" to something.
Acceptable reactions to things are mostly learned in older ages (like 7-13) - I was thinking of younger kids. In my experience, kids who are hushed up have more temper tantrums than kids who are allowed to vent.
This all presupposes consistant limits, though. Parents who have inconsistant rules will end up with kids who tantrum way too much, just because it is unnerving for the kids to have changing rules.
If you let the kid throw a tantrum and don't reward them by fulfilling whatever want they had, they'll learn that it does nothing for them.
You know, a kid that's younger than 18 months or so doesn't even recognize himself in a mirror. That's a small test, but full-grown chimps and bonobos do recognize themselves in a mirror. Kids are sub-human, and may not always act rationally if the stimulus is not convincing enough. Or, when being ignored might just scream progressively louder.
The continual failure of your anti-spanking argument is that you are treating a very complex thing -- the behavior of a child -- as an isolated lab experiment. There is too much variance in children and also in the methods applied for discipline to allow any broad study to provide pertinent data for an isolated case (i.e. your child). I don't think anyone here is suggesting that spanking should be the only method used to discipline a child, but without it you are depriving the child of the most basic behavioral experience: failure equals pain. Non corporeal forms of "pain" may suffice for certain children, but not for all.
As an aside, there are interesting side-hypotheses to this debate. Such as, which character traits lead to successful application of spanking in childhood? I'd argue that people who are very defiant, self-confident, and predisposed to fight (rather than "flight") might only respond to corporal punishment, and probably have the gall later in life not to have been affected much by it. That would be the "alpha" characteristic from the context of "alpha-male." A lot of people wonder why some boys, particularly those on sports teams or with certain organizations seem to enjoy both sides of hazing. Well, that's your pool of people who in youth could probably be positively affected by spanking.
You know, a kid that's younger than 18 months or so doesn't even recognize himself in a mirror. That's a small test, but full-grown chimps and bonobos do recognize themselves in a mirror. Kids are sub-human, and may not always act rationally if the stimulus is not convincing enough. Or, when being ignored might just scream progressively louder.
That makes me explain an argument I had previously considered making which is, if the kid doesn't have the capacity for self- control, why physically injure him for something he might not even understand he's doing, or is incapable of preventing himself from doing?
That makes me explain an argument I had previously considered making which is, if the kid doesn't have the capacity for self- control, why physically injure him for something he might not even understand he's doing, or is incapable of preventing himself from doing?
Because even pavlov's dog understands basic, behavioral stimuli.
Some articles from a search on google scholar. In a nutshell, the research on corporal punishment suggests it's better not to do it.
In adolecents that is true, BUT when it comes to kids under say 4-5, it may be good, their reasoning skills may not be as developed -- they dont understand the physical damage that getting hit by a car can do; but spanking can give some association; they kid may think "last time I went into the street, I got spanked, I dont want that again!" Spanking is a teaching tool more than a punishment tool.
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
I agree that you should not disipline a child for a temper tantrum. The child usually is getting his hard feelings out about something unrelated to what they seem to be mad/upset about - they can be embarrasing when in public, but I usually can take the child off somewhere private and wait until they finish venting.
My theory is that if you stop them from tantruming, then they end up with repressed emotions that come out in other ways later. You definitely should not let them influence decision making via tantrums, but letting them run their course instead of stopping them seems a lot better to me.
Don't agree entirely. They also have to understand what is and what is not an acceptable reaction to something. Often tantrums are for no good reason, not even fatigue. We will sometime give a timeout if the tantrum is ridiculous. My daughter will be taught to understand that screaming and kicking and flipping out is not acceptable just because the answer is "no" to something.
Originally posted by pena2050
I have a 2 year old baby. I don't spank him and I have no desire to.
I haven't had any problems controlling his behavior. When you give children options that are acceptable to you and them, there is no need to hit.
If he wants to eat ice cream on the sofa and I don't want him to, I tell him I don't want him to do that because he will spill, and I take him back to the table. If he insists I give him a choice, 'you can climb on the sofa or you can eat your ice cream at the table.' He chooses what he wants to do. This is a simple example, but it works for everything.
I can't really imagine an instance where I would want to hit or threaten him.
And children who are abused and even spanked are more antisocial, they are more likely to be depressed, less successful in school, and more likely to hit or abuse their parents when they are elderly. But if they do, it won't mean they don't love you, right?
Choices are good, but they don't always work. We use choices like that as well, but sometimes a spank is the only way. When your child scream "no" at you a few times over and refuses to sit on time out, then what are you going to do...give him a choice? Don't give me the "children will be depressed" bullshit. Spanking, done correctly and without anger, will not cause that. Period.
Originally posted by pena2050
Some articles from a search on google scholar. In a nutshell, the research on corporal punishment suggests it's better not to do it.
Yes it does. I teach a learning and memory class, and one time a few years ago we read this article along with the commentaries on it. Here's a summary.
While conducting the meta-analysis, which included 62 years of collected data, Gershoff looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse).
Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child.
They find that spanking does "work:" It is associated with compliance on the part of the child. But I think the most interesting other finding is that it is negatively associated with internalization - in other words, kids don't learn from being spanked.
The other issue is that spanking doesn't have much effect one way or the other, long-term. Sure, it has some negative effects, but not very big correlations. That's also consistent with most of the other findings in this area - small differences in parenting techniques don't have much influence on how kids turn out.
I also thought it was interesting that the biggest correlation they found was between spanking and abuse. In other words, the parents who spank were also the ones who were actually abusive. I'm sure all the parents who spank will say they aren't abusive, but the correlation is there.
we don't spank the 2 year old, limited things for her. nose in the corner time out etc. now the older one, we spank but VERY infrequently. what ever you do it's more important that both parents agree and not fight each other. i once used tobassco sauce on my son when he had "filth mouth" worked great i only had to do that 2 times and then show the bottle to him and he'd calm right down. now my new wife thinks that was cruel--. but says her mom used soap--now she says after many years at least the tobassco is a food the key is for it to work and you shouldn't have to use it but a few times over the years.. the idea is to choose something you only have to do rarely. and use many other techniques ratcheting things up a bit. things work for my 2 y/o but not my 4 y/o each is different. my 4 y/o is very stubborn and head strong and needs a much firmer hand, my 2 y/o works with nose inthe corner and time out.
the idea is stop the bad behaviour, for our 4 year old a "good star chart" that she made up worked for misbehaving in church, it works ...so far. and she wants those stars. she gets stars when she is avoids bad behavior but also gets them for positive things like compassion, helping others and thoughtfulness. we also praise 5:1 meaning for everthing we say she is doing wrong we also during the day tell her at least 5 things she is doing well. the least little things need praise too. don't lose opportunies to praise good behavior....but we also don't feel our children do no wrong like some other permissive parents we know.
children need guidance, learn to say no, and don't give in to everything, pick your battles.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Choices are good, but they don't always work. We use choices like that as well, but sometimes a spank is the only way. When your child scream "no" at you a few times over and refuses to sit on time out, then what are you going to do...give him a choice? Don't give me the "children will be depressed" bullshit. Spanking, done correctly and without anger, will not cause that. Period.
Thank you.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Don't agree entirely. They also have to understand what is and what is not an acceptable reaction to something. Often tantrums are for no good reason, not even fatigue. We will sometime give a timeout if the tantrum is ridiculous. My daughter will be taught to understand that screaming and kicking and flipping out is not acceptable just because the answer is "no" to something.
Acceptable reactions to things are mostly learned in older ages (like 7-13) - I was thinking of younger kids. In my experience, kids who are hushed up have more temper tantrums than kids who are allowed to vent.
This all presupposes consistant limits, though. Parents who have inconsistant rules will end up with kids who tantrum way too much, just because it is unnerving for the kids to have changing rules.
Originally posted by Placebo
If you let the kid throw a tantrum and don't reward them by fulfilling whatever want they had, they'll learn that it does nothing for them.
You know, a kid that's younger than 18 months or so doesn't even recognize himself in a mirror. That's a small test, but full-grown chimps and bonobos do recognize themselves in a mirror. Kids are sub-human, and may not always act rationally if the stimulus is not convincing enough. Or, when being ignored might just scream progressively louder.
The continual failure of your anti-spanking argument is that you are treating a very complex thing -- the behavior of a child -- as an isolated lab experiment. There is too much variance in children and also in the methods applied for discipline to allow any broad study to provide pertinent data for an isolated case (i.e. your child). I don't think anyone here is suggesting that spanking should be the only method used to discipline a child, but without it you are depriving the child of the most basic behavioral experience: failure equals pain. Non corporeal forms of "pain" may suffice for certain children, but not for all.
As an aside, there are interesting side-hypotheses to this debate. Such as, which character traits lead to successful application of spanking in childhood? I'd argue that people who are very defiant, self-confident, and predisposed to fight (rather than "flight") might only respond to corporal punishment, and probably have the gall later in life not to have been affected much by it. That would be the "alpha" characteristic from the context of "alpha-male." A lot of people wonder why some boys, particularly those on sports teams or with certain organizations seem to enjoy both sides of hazing. Well, that's your pool of people who in youth could probably be positively affected by spanking.
Originally posted by Placebo
If you let the kid throw a tantrum...
Unless you want to be able to predict when it's safe to be in public. I'd rather not have to get my 4 year-old's permission.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You know, a kid that's younger than 18 months or so doesn't even recognize himself in a mirror. That's a small test, but full-grown chimps and bonobos do recognize themselves in a mirror. Kids are sub-human, and may not always act rationally if the stimulus is not convincing enough. Or, when being ignored might just scream progressively louder.
That makes me explain an argument I had previously considered making which is, if the kid doesn't have the capacity for self- control, why physically injure him for something he might not even understand he's doing, or is incapable of preventing himself from doing?
Originally posted by Placebo
That makes me explain an argument I had previously considered making which is, if the kid doesn't have the capacity for self- control, why physically injure him for something he might not even understand he's doing, or is incapable of preventing himself from doing?
Because even pavlov's dog understands basic, behavioral stimuli.
It's exhausting and you have no credibility to be making those arguments.
If you find research to support that, great.
Edit: Ah, jeez. Sorry I was in a really bad mood. No girlfriend for spanking related activities
I thought this was about "Should I spank the twin sister of my girlfriend?" thread!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No girlfriend for spanking related activities
I sure am.
Originally posted by skatman
Damn...
I thought this was about "Should I spank the twin sister of my girlfriend?" thread!
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
I sure am.
Re-post that in this thread and it will, for all intents and purposes, explode.
Originally posted by pena2050
Some articles from a search on google scholar. In a nutshell, the research on corporal punishment suggests it's better not to do it.
In adolecents that is true, BUT when it comes to kids under say 4-5, it may be good, their reasoning skills may not be as developed -- they dont understand the physical damage that getting hit by a car can do; but spanking can give some association; they kid may think "last time I went into the street, I got spanked, I dont want that again!" Spanking is a teaching tool more than a punishment tool.
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
I sure am.
Well hubba-hubba!
Giggiddy Goo!
</quagmire>