Thread: Parenting our little darling monsters - legitimate & edifying measures of discipline Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023017
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
I am sure I am not the only Shipmate who has moments when s/he has had to overcome the urge to plank their offspring (although for the overwhelming rest of the time I couldn't love them more).
Most parents, including the Molopatas, find it is necessary to use disciplinary measures at least sometimes to keep their children on the straight and narrow (...no, I don't mean the plank). There are different methods to achieve this which are considered more or less acceptable, such as smacks, being sent to ones room, withdrawal of privileges, "the talk", etc.
But when does a smack become a beating?
When does the room become solitary confinement?
When does the withdrawal of privileges become deprivation?
When does the talk become psychological terror?
Obviously there is no absolute yardstick for what measures are best, and what can be considered as an optimum depends largely on culture and the individual child. I would nevertheless be interested in an exchange on the intellectual considerations in which other shipmates have invested when approaching the challenge of discipling their child.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
What you do depends on how old they are.
I stopped thrashing* my kids when they reached the age of reason (about 2 years old...)
Since then, we've employed the naughty corner/step a lot, as it's calming for the parents as well as the child, and still do use it to shame them since the Torlets are now 14 and 12.
Computer privileges being withdrawn are highly effective on the Boy, grounding for a specified time on the Girl, though we mix and match depending on the level of outrage.
Their rooms are far too interesting to ever consider sending them there for a punishment, though I might suggest they disappear for a bit while I calm down.
I'm a great fan of the extended lecture, with anecdotes and points of law. They hate it, because everything in art, science, history and popular culture is used to prove that I'm right and they're not.
But normally the threat of sanctions is sufficient to get the little oiks to toe the line. We don't consider ourselves particularly strict, but when I compare what we do to what other parents do, perhaps we are. Of course, sometimes it feels all so scrotum-clenchingly reasonable that I feel like I really ought to lose it completely just occasionally - but that's not really fair on the kids. Sanctions shouldn't depend on how I feel.
(light tap on the hand with a firm "no!")
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Having been subjected to violence myself as a child and young person, I rejected all forms of it. My wife had the model within her family, and we followed it. Our children are now grown.
We expected them to internalize standards for behaviour and display what we expected, with endless talking, and rare raised voices, for which we apologized. Yelling at a child can be a form of violence.
When children are young and not yet at the level of reasoning, this sort of approach can be very difficult, and usually involves removing the child or thing they're into from them. My one child talks of how I stood in a cold shower with her in my arms on an occasion of her tantrum. It didn't require a repeat. And it is/was important that I was in the shower, subjected to the same, fully clothed, as she was. It illustrated to her how serious it really was that she was out of control, and that I was also out of control with her. We both apologized after and made plans not to get to this again. Though of course we did in different forms over the years.
Thus, when the kids tried smoking, alcohol and smoking drugs, we had our very troubling discussions and the behaviour was never repeated. Frankly, we never actually instituted consequences ourselves. Anything that was an endorsed parental response was child suggested.
People have said to me, when I've discussed this, that "oh your children are <this and that>, it wouldn't work with my kids who are entirely different". To this I say, no. You're wrong. But you do set the tone very early with children, and if you want them to internalize the standards for behaviour, you have to start young and show this faithfully.
My children are no one's fool, and can defend themselves, but they similarly don't expect aggressiveness and label it as such when they see it in other adults. They have said that a consequence of how we raised them is that they feel their consciences are over developed, and they feel stronger senses of guilt than they perceive in others. But they are relaxed and totally lack the temper that I possess.
Thus, I have thought that the word discipline if it lacks the word "self-" in front of it is likely illegitimate. But then, I already know that this goes against received wisdom and the general grain of the majority of parents.
[ 24. April 2012, 20:31: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Well said, no_prophet. That matches my belief and experience as well.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
As I recall, my mother's statement on this was that one should spank a child only if the child's offense endangered someone, and never for simply saying "No".
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
I think as children get older, enforcing the rules and discussing the rules need to be done on seperate occasions. Sanctions should be quick and simple - the child just needs to understand a) what is not acceptable, and b) that it is not acceptable on this occasion either. Tell them what they did, that's not on, and enforce a consistent punishment. Keep it quick and in proportion, accept no excuses, then let everyone move on.
Save talking about why the rules are what they are for when the adult is feeling calm, and the child is feeling cheerful and curious, rather than defensive, shamed or defiant - and you might all have an enlightening conversation.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
There is a seductive narrative that badly behaved monsters just need a bit more harsh discipline and they'll be sorted out. The only reason we don't do it is squeamishness, and we are letting our children down.
However I'm often struck by the fact that children will get up to mischief despite facing a reasonable risk of being caught and calamitous penalties.
My own experience is that I started parenting as a very strict disciplinarian, thinking it important to take a consistent stand every time I was contradicted or challenged. I thought this represented first-rate parenting and would bear fruit in future.
On reflection I was wondered if I was being an arse and picking fights that didn't need to be picked.
I've become more relaxed, focus on the bigger issues, negotiate whenever possible and I think it's a better approach for all concerned.
I am possibly still an arse but for other reasons.
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
quote:
I think as children get older
Just to clarify my previous post, I work with preschoolers, so by 'older' I mean 'getting into school age'. I can't talk about much older than that.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
I should probably add: I think that children are in general better informed, better at anticipating others' feelings and better at understanding larger consequences that when I was young. I have immense hope in teenagers and like this age group pretty well the best. I miss my children being teens. Such idealism helps the jaded middle aged.
I also like young adults and school age and preschoolers and babies, and am available to baby sit, monitor and otherwise chaperone any group.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
My one child talks of how I stood in a cold shower with her in my arms on an occasion of her tantrum. It didn't require a repeat. And it is/was important that I was in the shower, subjected to the same, fully clothed, as she was. It illustrated to her how serious it really was that she was out of control, and that I was also out of control with her. We both apologized after and made plans not to get to this again. Though of course we did in different forms over the years.
I'm interested that you bring the Cold Shower up, because it was actually reflection on this "technique" that provoked my OP. We (the Molopatas) know a mother who practices the Cold Shower on her daughter from time to time (but the girl endures the shower on her own). We (from our position of infinite wisdom) have felt this to be beyond the pale and verging on abuse, without ever deciding exactly why. In your own case, I find that the fact that you joined your daughter in the shower mitigates my concerns, even though the physical impact on the child, I imagine, was rather similar. Perhaps the main difference is the psychological effect, in that you were not condemning your daughter, but stayed with her and endured what she was enduring.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
But when does a smack become a beating?
At the first smack. There is simply no reason to smack a kid. All s/he learns from it is how to smack her/himself.
When does the room become solitary confinement?
If it becomes more than an agreed to time. Notice I said agreed to. I think the kids need to be a part of the decision making. More later.
When does the withdrawal of privileges become deprivation?
Isn't that what withdrawal of privileges mean, to deprive someone of what s/he values. As already mentioned, kids have different things they value. It does not hurt for them to learn that misbehaving has consequences meaning the deprivation of what they value temporarily.
When does the talk become psychological terror? If you are mad when you have the talk. It is best to say at this point you need to calm down, but there will be a time when kid and you will have to talk what happened through.
I am a former instructor of Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. See if you can find this program in your area. You will be surprised at how simple this is--and how effective.
Kids have to learn that certain misbehaviors will have certain consequences. Consequences are either natural (a kid does not dress warmly enough, he or see will be cold), and logical--consequences--which are agreed to by both parties in advance. (Kid has to know if s/he does not come home at the agreed time, the consequence will be not having computer privileges or cell phone for a set time the next day.) Kids as young as two can easily grasp this concept.
Wife and I raised four kids. For the most part we followed the STEP program with very good outcomes. We are now seeing them using the same approach with our grandchildren. It is good to know it is working for them too.
[ 24. April 2012, 21:51: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Jigsaw (# 11433) on
:
Gramps and noprophet have outlined an ideal which some of us couldn't match, I think. I'd say keep it simple:
Pick your battles, as mdijon said. Does it really matter if one of them has been a bit clumsy or careless? Leave the heavy stuff for the serious issues.
Set rules that can be followed, where it's clear when they are transgressed, and where there's a suitable penalty for breaches. (Mind you, the only clear-cut example of this I ever found was "Always flush the loo after a poo")
We are not perfect. We can be irrational after a trying day. We shouldn't beat ourselves - or our kids - up if we can't follow all the good advice we've received. It's hard to do the psychological stuff as advocated by gramps and noprophet if you have a splitting headache or are dog-tired. If you're pretty fair and loving and consistent otherwise, I think even young children can withstand the odd lapse.
Smacking? More people have done it - once or twice - than will admit it. Those who have are often more upset at having resorted to it than the child is affected by receiving it.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Cold shower was not a technique. It was a father with a 2 hour tantrum with a 4 year old. Did not know what to do and thought of it. A one off. We both settled down following as I describe. Never again.
I believe that if you first hit or spank, then repeat, the child develops an understanding of how that is and then the parent has to increase the level. I hear of parents who have spanked, then removed TV and games, taken doors of bedrooms, grounded, taken away dessert. Or done all in combination. What then if undesired behaviour continues? medications? execution? Shudder!
I was spanked at home with a belt and then at school with long pieces of wood. All the time. We all were. After a while, you are left as a child with pretending something that is tolerable from experience is excruciating, and the person either hits less hard in response, or like a player taking a dive in football or hockey, punishes you all the more when they realize you're faking.
Such experiences at this intensity that I experienced may be rare today, but they still create rage, unimaginable rage. And hate. Intense hate. For the hitter. For your life. It is only a matter of degree.
[ 24. April 2012, 23:58: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on
:
Proverbs 13:24 ESV
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Hebrews 12:11
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 23:13-15
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. My son, if your heart is wise, my heart too will be glad.
Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
These are a few of the verses in the Bible that support spanking. I think since God created us He knows the best method of child discipline, spanking. Kids have to know that doing wrong things (sinning) will bring consequences. Kids have to know that there is a limit to what they can do. Threatening doesn't work if the "threats" aren't fulfilled. Reasoning with kids only goes so far.
If my son disobeys, he knows he will get a spanking. He will sometimes even tell me "I need a spanking." I first tell him why he is getting a spanking. Then I give him a spanking, not in anger, but in love. Then I hug him and explain to him again why he got the spanking. I give him a kiss (he is two and a half), tell him I love him and then that is the end. In one minute he is happy and the event is behind him. Knowing there is a clear set of boundaries makes him feel secure.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Watching Son#2 and his wife handle our granddaughter's Terrible Twos...I find their restraint and humor quite remarkable; she's actually a very good child, but she has her moments of defiance and stubbornness. DiL is a child psychologist, so I'm trusting that she's using some professional expertise in minimizing the naughtiness.
From what we've seen/heard, Ruby gets a lot of praise for positive behaviors, is conditioned to treat her toddler chores like fun time ("Clean up/clean up/everybody everywhere/clean up/clean up/everybody do your share") is ignored during annoying but un-naughty behavior (usually with an additional explanation like, "Daddy will play with you AFTER you put your toys away." When she's rude or otherwise commits more serious bad behavior, both parents use The Voice, which isn't yelling and is delivered in a calm manner, but is very sharp, direct and no-nonsense. I haven't seen Ruby defy The Voice; by that time she seems to get that she'd better stop doing whatever it is that she is doing.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
One thing I've learned is that every child is different and what worked for once child might not work at all for another. My daughter required huge effort and disciplining while my son was natually easy going from birth and has never had as much as a time out.
They are very different people with different strengths and weaknesses and have to be dealt with in different ways. I am skeptical of anyone who claims that there is a one size fits all philosophy.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I'm really having a hard time seeing someone cut-and-paste Scripture as justification for hitting a child. Seriously, Bronze Age justifications for striking a child are okay because "the Bible tells me so"?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The best way to handle a tantrum is to ignore it. Place the child in a safe place and then walk away. Generally they will calm down within minutes when they realize they are not getting any attention.
Once the child is calm, speak to him or her in a calm voice and process what had just happened.
There is more to discipline than beating a child with a rod. Discipline is about learning self control and responsible behavior. Believe you me, kids can learn responsibility when they understand there are positive and negative consequences to their choices.
BTW, do you know where the term "rule of thumb" comes from? Back in Merry Ole' England (about the time of Shakespeare, to be exact) it was permissible for a man to beat his wife with a cane that was no bigger in diameter than the man's thumb. We don't cane women any more--if one were to do so, he would be charged with assault. Why do people insist on using the rod or belt or paddle on a child?
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
'Fraid the "rule of thumb" bit is an urban legend, Gramps.
quote:
I'm a great fan of the extended lecture, with anecdotes and points of law. They hate it, because everything in art, science, history and popular culture is used to prove that I'm right and they're not.
I can't say that ever worked very well for me, though it did have the benefit of turning both of my kids into excellent debaters with a firm grasp of both logic and rhetoric, and an eagle eye for the weak spot in an argument... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I never believed in spanking, but in the early years I lost my temper a few times and did. Our first, the boy, was fairly easy anyway; my daughter was more strong-willed and fully capable of a two-hour tantrum. When she was eight I saw how things were escalating, and I took a vow that I would not spank, threaten spanking, or yell, ever again. I stuck to it (it wasn't always easy). Things got better from that point on. She grew (to our great surprise and relief) into a perfectly delightful teenager (well, almost perfect) and is now a delightful adult.
While there is reasonable controversy about whether a moderate degree of corporal punishment is actually harmful, there is really no good case to be made that it is more effective than other approaches--and a good deal of evidence that it is less effective.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Not all children respond in the same way to discipline. I could talk to and reason with my daughters, but at times I had to smack or grab my son to get his attention and for his own safety. When you see a child about to do something really dangerous (eg poking scissors into the power point), it is pointless to say 'now don't do that darling.' My son responded better to physical intervention (he has ADHD) until about the age of 5 when he gradually learnt to listen to instructions.
I know tantrums are best dealt with by putting the child in a safe place and walking away, but that isn't possible in the supermarket - kids seem to save tantrums for the supermarket!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm really having a hard time seeing someone cut-and-paste Scripture as justification for hitting a child. Seriously, Bronze Age justifications for striking a child are okay because "the Bible tells me so"?
If savedbyhim01 takes as much notice of the rest of scripture, I don't think there's a serious problem. People find it difficult to reconcile verses that, on the face of it, say different things. That's why the Word is important, not the words.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
I'm interested that you bring the Cold Shower up, because it was actually reflection on this "technique" that provoked my OP. We (the Molopatas) know a mother who practices the Cold Shower on her daughter from time to time (but the girl endures the shower on her own). We (from our position of infinite wisdom) have felt this to be beyond the pale and verging on abuse... Perhaps the main difference is the psychological effect, in that you were not condemning your daughter, but stayed with her and endured what she was enduring.
I haven't heard of this before as a "technique" and my immediate reaction is like yours. I think the psychological effect is everything. One might endure similar pain as a result of an accident or a beating from a parent, but the effect on the child will be totally different.
Forced cold showers practised deliberately sounds like the stuff of public-school-bullying to me, or the sort of thing George Bush might have called an "enhanced interrogation technique". It is a very unpleasant physical punishment.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
I'm a great fan of the extended lecture, with anecdotes and points of law. They hate it, because everything in art, science, history and popular culture is used to prove that I'm right and they're not.
I can't say that ever worked very well for me, though it did have the benefit of turning both of my kids into excellent debaters with a firm grasp of both logic and rhetoric, and an eagle eye for the weak spot in an argument...
Mine, too. Which is a good thing. If they can rationalise their own behaviour before the event, they're much less likely to do something stupid.
Of course, I have one pre-teen and one teenager, and that's still a looooooooooong way off. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is more to discipline than beating a child with a rod. Discipline is about learning self control and responsible behavior. Believe you me, kids can learn responsibility when they understand there are positive and negative consequences to their choices.
When living in Africa we found out that many people were appalled by the idea of locking up a child in a confined space because of some wrongdoing (and in our area most families didn't really have the confined space to do it any way). They were equally appalled by the idea of spanking with a bear hand. They did however occasionally use sticks. The use of the stick somehow removed the immediacy of the pain inflicted on the child by the adult. Rather, it was the stick that administered the pain and only by proxy the adult. That difference may sound like hairsplitting to us, and it is by no means one I would subscribe to, but at a socio-psychological level, it's implications are at least worth considering.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
My problem with this verse is that it is demonstrably untrue, at least in our society. Many children depart from the way they were raised despite the best efforts of their parents. I'm sure we all know devout Christian parents whose offspring grew up to be complete agnostics.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
They were equally appalled by the idea of spanking with a bear hand.
As am I. It sounds cruel and unusual. Especially if you were to use, say, a grizzly's paw.
But seriously I also notice that discipline of children is much harsher in Africa. Particularly Nigeria, I notice.
And some of the worst behaved, least well adjusted children I've come across have been Nigerian with incredibly disciplinarian fathers.
Locking up doesn't sound great to me either I must say. It is one thing telling a child that they have to sit still somewhere or have to remain in a room for a given period of time, but actually locking the door seems a bit too much to me. (And might even be dangerous).
Sitting alone worked briefly for me, but one of my children hated it so much I could see it was too distressing and too harsh for them. On the other hand, my other child didn't seem to mind it at all and it was barely a deterrent.
Withdrawing treats, giving fines and confiscating property seems to work pretty well for both of them. Careful explanation of the reason for the punishment seems synergistic in producing long-term outcome. (By long-term I mean any change in behaviour lasting into the next day. Maybe my bar is too low).
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Truly, I only see using physical force to discipline a child a necessity if s/he's about to do something dangerous -- i.e., slapping a hand away from a hot burner or grabbing the arm of a child about to dart into traffic in a way that sends the message that this is serious.
During our granddaughter's recent visit with us, the only time we engaged in any hands-on discipline, if that is the right word, was when she was being contrarian about sitting on the potty, after informing us that she needed to use it (at this stage she generally needs a favorite book and about 5 minutes to, erm, get in the right mindset for the deed in question), and when she tried to run away I finally scooped her up and took her, loudly protesting, to the bathroom and sat her down. (And it was a good thing I did.)
Whenever I hear discussions about corporal punishment I always think about the kid in our elementary and middle school who received the most corporal punishment of all -- this back in the day when teachers were allowed to use wooden paddles. This kid got a licking at least once a week, right up to junior high school. He also came from a home (I rode the school bus with him and his many siblings and thus learned about their home life from their conversations) where striking children was the norm.
He and his brother wound up in a federal pen.
Yeah; all that non-sparing the rod from multiple adult authority figures really worked for them.
By means of contrast: In my home, even though my dad came from a family where the children where regularly struck by their parents (in a way that I think nowadays would have sent my grandparents to jail. And in my grandmother's family, her brother had been beaten so severely by their father that it damaged him physically and mentally for the rest of his life)-- my father only spanked me twice that any of us could remember. The first time was when I was a tot, when I refused to eat mashed potatoes, he spanked me, I ate them under duress and then promptly threw them up all over him...no more corporal punishment until several years later when I defied his command not to change the TV channel; that incident is the only one I personally remember. And in retrospect I think it was highly inappropriate for such a trivial thing; I think he just lost his self-control because he'd had a bad day. And I think he was somewhat chagrined to have done it, because it never happened again.
For me The Parental Voice was quite enough to keep me in line. I hated The Voice and tried to avoid it at all costs.
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
This thread has left me puzzled, as it sent me thinking to my own up-bringing. My parents only rarely hit me, and I presume only when I was being really quite out of control.
However - and maybe this is a generational thing, I'm, say, under 35 - whilst I can justify their actions entirely, and I'd almost certainly do the same, there's something inside me which says, very clearly, very forcefully, that when ANYONE hits you, whatever the reason, for whatever purpose, you hit them back harder and if needed, with a weapon.
I'm not sure where it comes from (The Fall, maybe) but it's definitely there.
AV
[ 25. April 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I think it is the "Fall", yes (what Walter Wink would call "the myth of redemptive violence"). But it's also aggravated by early training. When we spank our kids, we teach them that that is an acceptable way to resolve conflict. That it is acceptable for people who are bigger and more powerful to leverage that advantage violently, to enforce their will thru, well, force.
The rub coming about 14-16 yrs later when many of us wake up to see that our little darlings are no longer little, and in fact are much bigger than we are (mine tops me by a good 6 inches, and is still growing). At that point you will have done well to have taught some other sorts of early lessons about the meaning of family, of community, of how we resolve differences. Some other meaning of "biblical discipline". Otherwise, God help us-- literally.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
I smacked my kids (three boys, now aged 31, 28 and 16) on occasion - but only after counting to three, thus allowing them time to change what they were doing. By using The Voice when counting and by only using this technique sparingly (and when I MEANT it), I was able to get to the position where just getting to two was normally enough. Sometimes a VERY defiant son would say "two" for me... And I'd thank him for helping me to hurry towards the point when I could give him a bloody good hiding. Invariably this would reslut in the child giving up and no smack being needed! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I also pointed out naughty kids around us (in restaurants etc.) and congratulated my sons on being better behaved than them. I'd whisper that those children were unlucky, because their parents were "clearly morons". I would stress to my kids quite often that having a mother capable of preparing them to survive in polite society (and stay out of prison) was a wonderful privilege that God had given them. My, how they laughed.
Bringing up three boys (part of the time as a single parent) wasn't easy but humour really helped. And loads of love. And sticker charts and positive reinforcement... And both listening and talking.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When we spank our kids, we teach them that that is an acceptable way to resolve conflict. That it is acceptable for people who are bigger and more powerful to leverage that advantage violently, to enforce their will thru, well, force.
Oh, please. The silly notion that all forms of corporal punishment are equivalent to bullying violence is just idiotic. Children are quite able to make moral distinctions between being punished for doing wrong and being bullied for no apparent reason. They are also clever enough to recognize parental stupidity when they find it -- if you can't figure out the difference between punishment and terrorism, don't expect your kids to give you a clue.
My wife was adamantly opposed to any form of physical punishment, and would yell for hours in a pointless argument with a youngster. Kids love to wind up adults, and if you are willing to play that game, they will oblige. I would come home to my wife a complete wreck, demanding that I had to discipline the kids for a mess of her own making more times than I care to remember.
Pretending that this kind of nonsense is preferable to drawing a clear line and enforcing it with spanking if necessary just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I spanked my kids two or three times in their entire childhood. But that was enough to establish that I was serious about being obeyed, and they did obey me. My wife conveyed the message that all pronouncements from her were infinitely negotiable, and they received her pronouncements as such.
My kids are grown and out of the house now. I don't know whether a different approach would have been better or worse, but I know that I approached the task of parenting with a serious commitment to doing the best I could to raise them. I have no regrets in having resorted to spanking on rare occasions, and I don't believe that it was any more damaging to their development than it was to mine when my parents spanked me as a boy.
--Tom Clune
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Child Protective Services here will consider corporal punishment as a problem when they review families. Technically spanking a child is not illegal in Canada subject to court decisions which have said so, but hitting a child with any form of object and somewhere not a spanking area might be grounds for criminal charges. Child Protection has the authority to tell parents they may not strike a child in any way and proceed via the child protection legislation. So effectively outlawing it for a particular family at minimum.
Not resorting to physical violence does not mean endless talking nor yelling. Didn't do either of these. I also have never hit our dogs.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
The book Nurtureshock (which examines recent findings in child psychology) says that corporal punishment is most damaging when it's used in communities where it's uncommon. That is, if most of a child's friends get spanked occasionally, the child doesn't think much about it- spankings just seem normal.
But in cultures where corporal punishment is becoming rare (such as among college-educated Americans), a child who is spanked assumes he must be REALLY a bad kid to have gotten such a harsh punishment. So it has a much more damaging effect on his attitude and self-worth.
I was spanked (rarely and not hard) as a child and don't think it did me any harm. I don't remember it being any more painful or humiliating than any other punishment. But I am hoping to avoid spanking my son (age 2 1/2). So far we've had the best luck with timeouts and taking away toys. We're using 1-2-3 Magic and it really does work!
There are plenty of unpleasant consequences to lay on a kid without hitting him. Threatening a bubble-less bath or a story-less bedtime if I reach the count of three usually brings my son right into line. (And if not, I get a break from those $%^^&*@#&$% Clifford books!)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When we spank our kids, we teach them that that is an acceptable way to resolve conflict.
I was spanked by my father. Not all that often or all that hard, but it never occurred to me to internalize that as a lesson in domination and violence, and I certainly don't have a problem with temper or violence now. (Neither did my father - he just belongs to a culture that thinks that is a reasonable way of bringing up children).
I don't believe in spanking now, but I think the caricature that spanking teaches children to be violent is just as simplistic and polarizing as the caricature that suggests not spanking will lead to criminal adolescents.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Not resorting to physical violence does not mean endless talking nor yelling. Didn't do either of these.
If it worked for you with your kids, more power to you. But assuming that you found the formula that all parents should use and they will get similar results is not just arrogant, it is clearly wrong. My two kids were different enough that they needed very different styles of parenting. I rather suspect that the range of kids is even more diverse than that.
--Tom Clune
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
I won't agree that violence is reasonable. Under any circumstances. If we're simply talking individual differences between children such that different things in terms of parenting are required, then it is a strawman to argue.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Not resorting to physical violence does not mean endless talking nor yelling. Didn't do either of these.
If it worked for you with your kids, more power to you. But assuming that you found the formula that all parents should use and they will get similar results is not just arrogant, it is clearly wrong.
I don't see where s/he did that though. I only see np saying that there are enough methods that no one needs to use those two methods.
For myself, I am another who was spanked, am not scarred by it, but don't do it with my child. On some level I think I just can't accept the idea of anyone doing violence to her, including myself.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When we spank our kids, we teach them that that is an acceptable way to resolve conflict.
I was spanked by my father. Not all that often or all that hard, but it never occurred to me to internalize that as a lesson in domination and violence, and I certainly don't have a problem with temper or violence now. (Neither did my father - he just belongs to a culture that thinks that is a reasonable way of bringing up children).
I don't believe in spanking now, but I think the caricature that spanking teaches children to be violent is just as simplistic and polarizing as the caricature that suggests not spanking will lead to criminal adolescents.
I would probably agree with that. Yet I think there are also implicit messages that we teach that are not as conscious as what you're suggesting. Yes, no one is going to say, "my parents spanked me and thus I know that it's always right to win an argument thru force". But there are all sorts of ways that our society gives credence to that belief (again, read Wink's powers that be for an excellent exploration of this). Our urge to resolve problems with our youngsters is both a symptom and a cause (albeit certainly not the most significant one) of our underlying belief in the myth of redemptive violence.
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on
:
I utterly hate and despise the method of counting to three or five or whatever when children are misbehaving. I hate it with the flaming heat of a thousand suns.
Why?
Glad you asked.
Because it means that, without fail, without exception, I see children merrily doing whatever it is that mommy (and often enough daddy) is not happy with. They're running around the grocery store, getting in the way of shoppers and their carts, playing with the store displays, and mommy is over there counting.
"Come on, darling. One, two... Come on, sweetie, come back over here before Mommy gets to three! One, two..."
The kid knows bloody well s/he doesn't have to do anything until the penultimate number is reached, and often enough not even then.
Whatever method of discipline you choose, please, please, please be consistent with whatever method of discipline you choose. When you say "Come here", mean it. Kids are smart enough to figure out very quickly when you're being inconsistent, and they will take advantage of that.
I do not mean that you cannot have grace; nor do I mean that you should pick on every bad behavior. But if you've decided that a certain behavior is worth your time in correcting, then do it every time. My beef with the counting method is that I have never, ever, not once seen it applied with consistency.
And on the subject of children running wild in the grocery store (and other public places, for that matter):
I've seen children running wild in the grocery store from the viewpoint of a watchful older brother and from the viewpoint of the poor sod who had to clean up the mess on aisle three. Children can certainly learn not to touch everything they see. I promise it will not stunt their growth, or warp them, or make them less inquisitive and less open to learning. It will teach them to respect others' property and that making messes in the grocery store, even accidentally, isn't a Good Idea. Keeping them near you will hopefully keep them safe from those electric carts that some people use so recklessly*. It will keep me from nailing them with my shopping cart as I round the corner, unable to see that precious little kid who isn't paying attention to his/her surroundings.
I really do want children to have fun, to be inquisitive, to be excited by learning. But I also want children to be safe, to be considerate, and to be polite.
Consider the fact that, when I was working for one of the largest retail stores in the world, I regularly came across children who were several aisles away from their parents. How easy would it be for me to grab the child and run? How easy would it be for me to be out the door and into a waiting car before the parents even knew what was happening?
We once got a Code Adam for a missing child. In those cases, the child is presumed kidnapped, and management runs to cover the doors. The description of the kid goes out across the PA system, and all associates immediately drop what they're doing to help search for the child. The store manager calls law enforcement, and in the town where my store was located, they always responded with lights and siren. In this case, the mother was hysterical -- utterly beside herself to the point that she could barely give a description of the missing child.
It turned out she wasn't paying a bit of attention to her daughter, and the girl was found beneath a rack of shirts in the juniors clothing area. One of the loss prevention associates later went back over the security camera footage and discovered she'd been hiding for about 20 minutes before the mother even noticed. Obviously, this wouldn't have happened had she kept an eye on her daughter. Yes, kids can and do slip away occasionally, but being a parent means having the responsibility to make sure that you know where your children are when in public.
I realize, upon re-reading this, that it sounds a touch more hellish than I meant, and I don't mean to offend.
What I'm driving at is simply this: Be consistent. Be considerate. Be aware. What makes me dislike children is rude and inconsiderate behavior. And it torches me because I know that I mastered the art of being considerate and polite pretty early on, and so did all my siblings. We're average intelligence; I'm confident that others can easily do the same.
And if you're one of the few parents who actually does the counting thing AND is consistent with it AND you have well-behaved children as a result, then I lift a pint in salute, and I'll buy you one if ever we meet.
And of course, the obligatory: YMMV.
____
*A friend had several bones in his foot broken by one of those things when the driver ran over him. He wasn't in the way (actually, he was out of her path and trying to move even further away), and he was the only other person on the aisle. She didn't stop to see if he was ok, but said something nasty about him being in her way. Imagine if that was your child who wasn't listening to you at that moment. Seriously, that could be a wicked injury. I highly doubt counting to three would be an effective method there, especially if you routinely don't follow through.
[ 26. April 2012, 02:06: Message edited by: Padre Joshua ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The counting game is ineffective. Yelling (shouting) does not help. Spanking is counterproductive. In all three cases if a parent resorts to them it means they have lost control.
Using a stern, no nonsense voice as the above poster relates works very well.
Code Adam--I know where you worked. We had several of them when I worked for the same company too, and as you said it was usually because the kid was hiding somewhere. In one case the child was to stay with mother as father was going somewhere else, but kid followed father and there was no communication between mother and father.
Only once one of my kids acted up in a store. I simply and calmly removed him from the store and took him home. The associates had to restock my basket, but I think removing the kid from the store was more important than inconveniencing a clerk.
I also agree one has to be consistent with whatever discipline one chooses to follow. To tell a kid their privileges will be revoked and then not following through makes you no more than a paper tiger.
I am also not in favor of grounding for more than a night--to make it longer only breeds resentments. But if we grounded someone, we always made sure that the kid would have to complete a task before privileges were restored. Cleaning up their room was always a good one. But with the spread of cell phones and the internet (which we did not have to deal with until the kids were in their mid teens) probably adds a new wrinkle to that. I will have to ask my daughter how she deals with that with granddaugher next time I see her.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The counting game is ineffective. Yelling (shouting) does not help. Spanking is counterproductive.
Again I think this is too simplistic. Counting clearly works fine for some people. Getting a warning of consequences before consequences are visited can be a useful strategy, and might allow a child to make a more thoughtful decision, and counting does that.
Some children do seem to respond to raised voices, which I have seen used by parents who don't seem "out of control" and spanking does sometimes achieve a useful change in behaviour. Simply stating that all these are counter-productive doesn't seem to advance a debate.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
And if you're one of the few parents who actually does the counting thing AND is consistent with it AND you have well-behaved children as a result, then I lift a pint in salute, and I'll buy you one if ever we meet.
It worked for me (us) or I wouldn't have kept doing it! But I know what you mean about parents who whine at their children and have no intention of following their threats up.
When I went shopping I got my boys to help and tried to make it a game. Obviously my parenting hasn't always been perfect but I WILL say that my kids have been VERY good in public, and in other people's homes. In our house they were a bit more cheeky.
Just to add, in case anyone cares - When my oldest two (a three year gap) were fighting, I resolved NOT to intervene but to tell them they had to sort it out between themselves. They soon stopped fighting, since it earned them no attention from me. They became SO close (and adore their little brother too) that I'd recommend keeping your nose out to anybody whose children squabble.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Well, perhaps counting means something to some kids, but I doubt it. I think one verbal warning is enough, and then some kind of action should ensue if the request is blatantly defied.
The difficultly of taking action is that kids often wait until you are in a public place, or with friends before they begin to act up. They know you will be embarrassed and uncomfortable and are therefore more likely to give in, in order to keep the peace. How do you send a two year old who is having a tantrum in the supermarket to the naughty corner? You can't.
One of my grandchildren was a master at this tactic and it drove his mother crazy. He only ever tried it on me once in public. On being denied the objects of his desire at the store, he threw himself on the ground kicking and screaming. I simply picked him up by the ankles and held him upside down (facing away from me until he stopped swinging his fists). I explained calmly that when he stopped the tantrum, he would be put down again.
He quickly stopped, and we walked out of the store hand in hand. I knew he was shocked by what had happened, so I asked if he liked what I had done. He replied "No!" I explained that I didn't like his behaviour either, and we made a bargain to not make each other so uncomfortable in future.
He never did this again in public, though he tried it a couple of times at home, particularly in front of his mother. I simply employed the same method, and got the same result. He was cured of tantrums very quickly and his mother was amazed.
Yes, I employed the advantage of my size, and perhaps some would argue that this constitutes abuse, or bullying into submission. However, I believe that what the child was trying to do was beyond reason. I get very tired of listening to parents attempting to reason with children who are enjoying humiliating them, blackmailing them and abusing them publicly. SOMEONE has to be in control - and it might as well be the parent.
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Using a stern, no nonsense voice as the above poster relates works very well.
Except, of course, when it doesn't.
I have A Voice, and A Look, which can quell a Sunday School class or other group of children not related to me at twenty paces. My own children generally take absolutely no notice of it whatever.
I'm not going to say we never smack, but I can't remember the last time I did it. I try really hard not to shout, but it certainly does happen. We are - in general - calm, consistent and use consistent consequences to bad behaviour, and I believe these are better and more effective forms of discipline than smacking or shouting, but it simply isn't true to say that The Voice always works well and it's the answer to our parenting challenges.
ETA: Counting works well for us.
[ 26. April 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: birdie ]
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
quote:
My wife was adamantly opposed to any form of physical punishment, and would yell for hours in a pointless argument with a youngster.
The latter doesn't follow from the former.
I have an aquaintance who is hopeless at setting boundaries for her kids, and seems to spend all her day alternating between frazzled, unpleasant nagging, and pronouncements that she 'can't' get them to do this or that and it's unrealistic for others to expect her to. When I've tried to gently suggest that what you need to do is set boundaries, i.e. decide what behaviour is unnacceptable and make it clear, with followed through consequences for disobedience, she replies with "so, you think I should beat them then?" ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:
The book Nurtureshock (which examines recent findings in child psychology) says that corporal punishment is most damaging when it's used in communities where it's uncommon. That is, if most of a child's friends get spanked occasionally, the child doesn't think much about it- spankings just seem normal.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Nasty parents always seem to like to go just that few steps beyond what is acceptable. Perhaps it's because they are usually scapegoaters who tell themselves that their kids are particularly bad and that they, the parents have it so hard.
The debate on whether children should be smacked or not is a massive red herring I think. It doesn't matter whether or not you smack - as long as discipline is a) carefully though through, b) done for the sake of the child, not the adult, c) proportunate to cultural norms (although these should always be up for question), d) consistent, e) appropriate to the child as an individual (whilst keeping consistency across siblings). These things are not easy to acheive, and deciding on the form of the punishment is only one part of what a parent should consider. Condeming another parent for simply using another form of punishment is an easy way to feel holier than thou, but maybe it's better to point the finger at those who, whatever they use, do not reguarly think it though or ever question themselves.
Let's also not forget that you can discipline children until you are blue in the face, but it's a waste of time without positive teaching and role modeling that teaches them what they SHOULD do.
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Val Kyrie:
...
Just to add, in case anyone cares - When my oldest two (a three year gap) were fighting, I resolved NOT to intervene but to tell them they had to sort it out between themselves. They soon stopped fighting, since it earned them no attention from me. They became SO close (and adore their little brother too) that I'd recommend keeping your nose out to anybody whose children squabble.
Up to what point? I find it hard not to intervene, especially when I know one of them (boys 4 and 7) has hit the other.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I found that if I smacked occasionally early on (as part of a range of corrections) then I didn't need to smack as they got older. That, to me is a lot less scary than the families who over-indulge their little children and then start smacking them when they are older and already out of control. It was the way I was brought up too, and seemed to work for my own family.
But YMMV, we are all different. And we live in different times now, when what was previously accepted wisdom is now unacceptable.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Using a stern, no nonsense voice as the above poster relates works very well.
Except, of course, when it doesn't.
I have A Voice, and A Look, which can quell a Sunday School class or other group of children not related to me at twenty paces. My own children generally take absolutely no notice of it whatever.
I'm not going to say we never smack, but I can't remember the last time I did it. I try really hard not to shout, but it certainly does happen. We are - in general - calm, consistent and use consistent consequences to bad behaviour, and I believe these are better and more effective forms of discipline than smacking or shouting, but it simply isn't true to say that The Voice always works well and it's the answer to our parenting challenges.
ETA: Counting works well for us.
I'm very suspicious of anyone who says 'do this and it will work'. Up to a point, Lord Copper. It will work -- except when it doesn't, and every method will fail sometimes.
I've no claim to be an expert parent, or even a very good one. I do my best to model good behaviour consistently (but sometimes I lose my temper). I don't smack (but I have in the past). I don't count (though I tried it). I try not to shout (but I'm only human).
One of my children responds, generally, to the accepted range of techniques for discipline. My other child has Asperger Syndrome, and doesn't: violence and aggression return on a cyclical basis, he doesn't instinctively copy our behaviour, sanctions are very tricky and often counter-productive.
We have resorted to all sorts of methods that many people might find morally repugnant. For instance, we ended one phase of violence by paying him a pound for every day in which he did not hurt his brother. It really worked, the violence stopped until the next time. We are resigned to doing everything over and over again and seeing tiny improvements over years.
So you are blessed if you have children who are able to learn the lessons that you need to teach them. But it isn't necessarily because you have got a great way of doing this that everyone else can learn from.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Up to what point? I find it hard not to intervene, especially when I know one of them (boys 4 and 7) has hit the other.
It IS really hard not to get involved but I read about the technique in a book and found it very effective at stopping the rows.
Quite often, when kids fight, we do NOT really know who started it, or why. Often the little brother is annoying the big brother, the big brother does something back, the little one screams blue murder and the parent runs in saying "Don't hurt your little brother!"... Which is very unfair and encourages the behaviour in BOTH of them. Little one knows he can get away with it, big one is frustrated and can't WAIT to get his own back. if the parent had ignored them, justice, although s little rough, would have prevailed.
Obviously a big brother constantly handing out unprovoked beatings to a little one is different but that is unusual (to my mind) and would probably be done to get attention from a parent anyway, you know?
You can't let kids hit each other with bricks (there are limits) but you can ignore the usual pushing, screaming, grabbing and so on. Whether they know it or not, they're doing it mostly for the reward of you looking up from your book, or running in to the room. If I WAS in the room and they tried that, I walked out in silence. Haha!
when I left my kids to it (I explained that it was up to them to learn to get along) it took three days or so for them to stop squabbling/fighting. At one point my oldest (who coincidentally was about 7 at the time) said "You don't love us! you're not stopping us!" and got really angry when I replied that I trusted them to deal with their arguments. It was a bit funny to see them agreeing that I was a bad mother.
But, like I said, they got over it and shared and are VERY close to this day.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
I'm not a parent, but as a child, the most frustrating type of discipline was inconsistency. I was sometimes (rarely) smacked, or generally told off (I was reasonably well behaved, and being told off was horrifying enough to make me behave). But I really hated when I was doing something which I'd done before, but suddenly got told off for it.
If I have children, I think that's the thing I'll try to do most - be consistent in terms of what gets punished, and follow through on punishments.
As others have said, I think the actual method of punishment probably depends a bit on the child's temperament. Being sent to sit in a corner alone would have been bliss for me, for example; I didn't much care for being smacked, but it wasn't the end of the world; I hated getting a lecture and would do anything to avoid it.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I think Ruby's naughtiness quotient -- which is very small for a kid her age, and almost non-existent in public settings -- has to do with the degree that her parents engage with her in a real way and help her navigate the adult world, in contrast to other parents (like her aunt and uncle) who basically keep the children in a separate social bubble, usually with other children, never really conversing with their kids in a real way or involving them in a meaningful way in their activities.
When Ruby is on errands with her parents, she is being spoken to like another, albeit tiny, human being ALL THE TIME. In the grocery store, she's asked her opinions on food, she gets to show off her color-naming and counting skills, she gets explanations of what Mama is doing, she's given small tasks to accomplish for Mama. Ditto if she's accompanying Daddy on his morning walk/coffee procurement or helping him with his household chores. In restaurants, she gets, instead of her own generic and bland "kids' meal," tastes of all the adults' foods. ("Let's face it," her father told us, "any restaurant kid's meal is going to suck. So why make her eat one?") She is a child who, despite spending time every week in daycare and a number of toddler-oriented classes, is comfortable around adults, can communicate with them and knows that she doesn't have to act out to get adult attention. She also has "jobs" to do, even though she's two. And she is about as perfect a child as a two-year-old can be in a restaurant setting; because it's highly interesting to her, she gets to taste a bunch of different tastes, and she gets included in the grownups' conversations. (She is in fact, visibly disturbed by other, misbehaving children in such places, and keeps looking at us as if to say, "What the hell is the matter with them?")
I think in recent decades there's been such a move toward a kind of generational segregation where children are, most of the time, among other peers with minimal meaningful interaction with adults and little exposure to how adults in general conduct themselves, that it's no wonder children don't know how to behave appropriately in "adult" situations like shopping or restaurant dining.
Of course, our kids have because of their lifestyle some freedom to include the grandchild in their daily activities in a way that other parents may not. And Granddaughter, at home, has some typical two-year-old oppositional behavior from time to time. But I'm just sayin'.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
My two are 6 and almost 2. I haven't had to do a lot of disciplining. I'm not sure why that is. Well, one thing is that from my perspective, they don't seem to do a lot wrong. The other is that my 6 year old has already learnt that it's much nicer to spend time together enjoying each other's company than winding each other up.
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
ETA: Counting works well for us.
Yes. As with most of the discipline techniques we've discussed here, it depends on consistency and how it is applied. Counting can be just another in a series of empty threats-- as in "1, 2, 3... nothing". But it can also recognize the truth that it can take time for any of us to calm down and get our emotions under control. Toddlers in particular are just learning this skill which, sadly, many an adult never mastered. Counting is a way of recognizing that.
As was noted upthread, it works far better to discuss "rules" outside of the actual incident. Same with "counting"-- it works best if you've had a conversation outside of tantrum time where you've role-played how to get control over your emotions, what change is expected at the end of the count, the consequences for not doing so, and the idea that the count is giving you space to do so.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think Ruby's naughtiness quotient -- which is very small for a kid her age, and almost non-existent in public settings -- has to do with the degree that her parents engage with her in a real way and help her navigate the adult world
I couldn't agree more with everything you've said in the above post. (And some other posts, on other threads!).
I knew people who asked me why I was talking to my babies, or why I discussed things with toddlers. It had never occurred to me NOT to. These people quite often talked to their cats, mind you! Haha!
All of my children developed good communication skills from an early age and also became quite funny, so we could both settle things in an angry way AND we could joke until bad behaviour seemed impossibly stupid. But I did give them "three" sometimes and I have smacked them (infrequently) because they were capable of being pretty bloody defiant! Bless them.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
I can't resist pointing out that this seems to typify the worst sort of polarizing statement one can make regarding parenthood. There are too many parents who think that their experience and what works with their children is normative, and anything else is defective in some way.
It strikes me as crass, unimaginative, and superior.
This kind of behaviour seems to be particularly reserved for child-bearing, education and rearing. It doesn't happen with stomach ulcers, for instance. You don't hear people in the pub saying "well the doctor never needed to give me any antacids to clear up my stomach ulcers. Sometimes I wonder about the attitude of the people taking these pills. It's as much a reflection on them as it is on their ulcers".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
I can't resist pointing out that this seems to typify the worst sort of polarizing statement one can make regarding parenthood. There are too many parents who think that their experience and what works with their children is normative, and anything else is defective in some way.
You could have just as easily quoted one of my comments here. And you'd be right.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how non-polarizing debate is done.
If you make a similar point of modelling not lying about chopping down cherry trees for your children then I'm impressed.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
I can't resist pointing out that this seems to typify the worst sort of polarizing statement one can make regarding parenthood. There are too many parents who think that their experience and what works with their children is normative, and anything else is defective in some way.
It strikes me as crass, unimaginative, and superior.
This kind of behaviour seems to be particularly reserved for child-bearing, education and rearing. It doesn't happen with stomach ulcers, for instance. You don't hear people in the pub saying "well the doctor never needed to give me any antacids to clear up my stomach ulcers. Sometimes I wonder about the attitude of the people taking these pills. It's as much a reflection on them as it is on their ulcers".
Parenting is a polarized subject. If I reacted the way you do, I would regard 99% of what people say to me on the subject as "crass, unimaginative and superior."
The vast majority of people are doing their very best, though, if we all simply post that, there won't be much to discuss.
ETA: For me the question "why discipline your children (in the sense of what behaviour actually required correction)?" is more interesting than "how discipline your children?"
[ 26. April 2012, 15:18: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
In my corner of the world the most smug parents are the one that get an easy going first child and then compare that child to other children and assume the difference is their superior parenting. We call those children tricksters since they often convince their parents to have another and often that second child will be of a completely different temperment and you can see the shell shocked look on the parent's faces as all of their assumptions fly out the window and the second one is a terror and doesn't respond at all to their 'methods'. They run around frazzled and exhausted and keep trying their method while the kid climbs into the glass front bakery case at the store and starts eating rolls (true story) A formerly derided parent might walk by and ask which chapter in the book covered this?
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Parenting is a polarized subject. If I reacted the way you do, I would regard 99% of what people say to me on the subject as "crass, unimaginative and superior."
The vast majority of people are doing their very best, though, if we all simply post that, there won't be much to discuss.
ETA: For me the question "why discipline your children (in the sense of what behaviour actually required correction)?" is more interesting than "how discipline your children?"
I agree that if we all simply agree that we do our various bests, there isn't a debate. But on the other hand if advice on how to do this amazingly difficult job of bringing up a child is to be useful, it has to have some purchase. And the problem is that so many people seem to think 'it has worked for me' will mean that it wil work for everyone else.
As I said in my last post, so much depends on your child. In the case of my elder son, the answer to the question 'why discipline?' is, I think, different to that for a NT child. A child who will not naturally understand social norms nor want to conform to them as he grows up, who will not gradually adopt behaviours that are modelled by his parents, and who is not motivated by social rewards (such as smiles, hugs or praise) needs more artificial encouragement to adopt desired behaviours than others. He needs a much stronger and longer-lasting scaffolding.
FWIW I get heartily sick of people telling me that my son 'is just doing what other children do', and that 'if I just did x, y or z' I wouldn't have any problems. No, and no.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
In my corner of the world the most smug parents are the one that get an easy going first child and then compare that child to other children and assume the difference is their superior parenting. We call those children tricksters since they often convince their parents to have another and often that second child will be of a completely different temperment and you can see the shell shocked look on the parent's faces as all of their assumptions fly out the window and the second one is a terror and doesn't respond at all to their 'methods'. They run around frazzled and exhausted and keep trying their method while the kid climbs into the glass front bakery case at the store and starts eating rolls (true story) A formerly derided parent might walk by and ask which chapter in the book covered this?
ah, yes.
The other form of comeupance (of which I have, sadly, personal experience) is the perfect child who suddenly (and it can indeed turn on a dime) hits adolescent rebellion full-on (at which time, of course, the stakes are much, much higher).
As satisfying as it is to witness that karmic retribution visited upon formerly smug parents, having experienced all it's ugly glory, I don't think I could really enjoy it's impact on even my worst enemy.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
As I said in my last post, so much depends on your child. In the case of my elder son, the answer to the question 'why discipline?' is, I think, different to that for a NT child. A child who will not naturally understand social norms nor want to conform to them as he grows up, who will not gradually adopt behaviours that are modelled by his parents, and who is not motivated by social rewards (such as smiles, hugs or praise) needs more artificial encouragement to adopt desired behaviours than others.
Perhaps I am less confident than others on this thread that I can identify what "desired behaviours" are, or should be.
Is that something you can identify with?
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
The flip side is when someone gets the very difficult first child and then gets a easy going second child. This happened to me and I kept worrying there was something wrong with him since he was so happy and sweet all of the time. The doctor assured me he was just a pleasant child.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I would regard 99% of what people say to me on the subject as "crass, unimaginative and superior."
Really? 99% of what people say on parenting has equivalence with referring to "defective adults"?
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
And I'm having a hard time linking that with the uncertainty expressed here;
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Perhaps I am less confident than others on this thread that I can identify what "desired behaviours" are, or should be.
If you can't identify what desired behaviours are, it seems to me rather a leap to start referring to people as defective adults for not producing them in their children.
Perhaps you meant wondering whether they are defective adults in a sort of "but probably not, no basis for that really" sort of way?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I would regard 99% of what people say to me on the subject as "crass, unimaginative and superior."
Really? 99% of what people say on parenting has equivalence with referring to "defective adults"?
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
And I'm having a hard time linking that with the uncertainty expressed here;
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Perhaps I am less confident than others on this thread that I can identify what "desired behaviours" are, or should be.
If you can't identify what desired behaviours are, it seems to me rather a leap to start referring to people as defective adults for not producing them in their children.
Perhaps you meant wondering whether they are defective adults in a sort of "but probably not, no basis for that really" sort of way?
I think you might have completely misunderstood me. Probably because I expressed myself badly.
I am saying that I am unsure what is the ideal behaviour for a child. Some people seem to think they know - they think their child is really a mini-adult; when the child does not behave like a mini-audlt, the child is "doing something wrong", which then triggers a requirement for discipline.
I am not sure that my children are "doing something wrong" when they are simply doing something:
I would not do
I do not like
that embarrasses me
that inconveniences me
I have observed that other people - for example, my husband, seems pretty sure that if he is embarrassed by something his child has done, the child must be "behaving badly". I do not think this necessarily follows. Indeed, it is sometimes distressing when adult embarrassment or inconvenience - or worse, a child not behaving like a grown up - are used as reasons for disciplining a child.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
As I said in my last post, so much depends on your child. In the case of my elder son, the answer to the question 'why discipline?' is, I think, different to that for a NT child. A child who will not naturally understand social norms nor want to conform to them as he grows up, who will not gradually adopt behaviours that are modelled by his parents, and who is not motivated by social rewards (such as smiles, hugs or praise) needs more artificial encouragement to adopt desired behaviours than others.
Perhaps I am less confident than others on this thread that I can identify what "desired behaviours" are, or should be.
Is that something you can identify with?
Certainly is. I set the bar quite low, and pick my battles very carefully. Mainly I am trying to see that he doesn't hurt anyone, and that no-one hurts him, that he's not excluded from school, and that other children and adults don't shun him.
On the other hand, I have to help him to live independently in society, as best I can. So we are doing our best with social niceties like table manners, not having tantrums, social greetings and conversation.
But I absolutely do agree with you that many people have very little understanding of how children might be expected to behave at their level of development.
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
Erroneous Monk, I don't think you expressed yourself badly; I think you raised valid points.
One rub might be the clash of generations; 'Baby Boomers' born 1946 to 1964, 'Generation X' born 1965 to 1979, and 'Millenials', born 1980 to 2001.
Now I am going to generalize but also use rough numbers based on American data, Google is your friend should you wish to check this out.
Boomers tended to spend time getting their children involved with sports, dance class, etc., the minivan was probably a symbol of that.
They also, according to some data, tended to see their children as extensions of themselves; that might well cause them to punish behavior that appeared to defy those expectations.
There were estimated to be 75 American Baby Boomers.
Gen X tend to reject rules, standards and authority unless they see a point to it; they are far more likely, for example, to live together before marriage.
They often do not have set norms for their children to live up to in the same way their parents did.
Your earlier comments perhaps reflect this; others who took issue with you may also have been simply showing Gen X insistance that there are no set norms.
There were estimated to be around 55 million Gen Xers, significantly less than Boomers.
Millenials tend to want to see things for themselves, can be more teachable than Boomers or Gen Xers, and like to be trusted.
They are children of late Boomers and early Gen X, and outnumber both; in America, there were/are around 79 million of the little buggers.
Discipline probably says more about the parent's attitudes than about the child's behaviour, so the points you raise are quite interesting, IMO.
Of course, I also tend to think this website is a Gen X creation in what is quickly becoming a Millenial's world, but, as a Boomer, I see both generations as extension of ours, and just want you to be the best you can be.
As long as that is something that I want you to be, of course.
[ 26. April 2012, 18:04: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
There are generational differences but also cultural differences. There were a couple of books made popluar recently that explore differences in child rearing based on cultrual expectation. One was the Yale professor's Tiger mother approach and the other Bringing up Bebe about an American mother who says she discovered wisdom in French approaches. My children have friends from various cultural backgrounds and the expectation around performance and behaviour, methods of discipline, and degree of child centeredness in their approaches vary greatly. There are kids whose parents think homework is a waste of time and others who enroll their children in more school after school. There are parents who take a "natural consequences" go with the flow direction and those with strict boundaries and harsh punishment, My daughter is a fine musician and there are kids she knows who are asked to pratice a half hour a day and others who are forced to do two or three full hours. All of these people honestly believe they are doing what is best for their child and each of them can advocate passionately and persuasively for their position.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I have heard of the turning a child throwing a tantrum upside down and it does appear effective--it throws their balance off and they have to reorient themselves. Never had to resort to that, though.
What is an ideal behavior for a child? Ultimately we want children who are responsible adults who can stand on their own two feet. '
When I say a stern no nonsense voice, I mean a voice that says what it means and means what it says. One that lets the child know the limit has been reached and consequences will follow. Children can see through a ideal threat (for lack of a better term). After all, that is their job, to constantly test boundaries.
Boundaries have to be clear but never rigid. One does not have the same boundaries for a two year old as for a thirteen year old. There are some things a two year old can get away with but would never be permitted with a thirteen year old. Conversely, there are some things a thirteen year old is capable of handling of which a two year old would be incapable. Boundaries will have to be adjusted as a child grows up--and grows away.
And they do grow up.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My two are 6 and almost 2. I haven't had to do a lot of disciplining. I'm not sure why that is. Well, one thing is that from my perspective, they don't seem to do a lot wrong. The other is that my 6 year old has already learnt that it's much nicer to spend time together enjoying each other's company than winding each other up.
Ah, but if you were to have a no. 3.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I am not sure that my children are "doing something wrong" when they are simply doing something:
I would not do
I do not like
that embarrasses me
that inconveniences me
I think very few people would see themselves as reacting in that way, and would usually have some other rationalization. You may disagree with the rationalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
For instance I might think a child ought to ask to leave the table after dinner before they get down. If they don't I might insist they come back and learn to ask politely. And that might involve some amount of discipline, although I wouldn't go too over board on it.
I'm doing it because I think learning to behave politely is important for the child's well being, and self-control is important.
You might disagree with my rationalization, but to say I am doing it simply because the child is doing something I "don't like" isn't helpful.
For what it's worth, the bit where I thought you expressed yourself especially badly was the "defective adult" bit.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I wonder sometimes whether the people I know who seem to have to do an awful lot of discipline think their children are defective adults rather than, well, children...
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you can't identify what desired behaviours are, it seems to me rather a leap to start referring to people as defective adults for not producing them in their children.
I don't think Erroneous Monk was referring to the parents as defective adults. Rather, she was wondering if the parents might think of their children as defective adults.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You don't hear people in the pub saying "well the doctor never needed to give me any antacids to clear up my stomach ulcers. Sometimes I wonder about the attitude of the people taking these pills. It's as much a reflection on them as it is on their ulcers".
Don't you? I do! I mean I do hear people say stuff like that. People who insist that this, that or the other disease is entirely a matter of "lifestyle choice" or not fighting back hard enough or lack of willpower. Its most common amongst braindead New Age fans of psuedoscience and pop psychology of course, but you do hear it down the pub.
Even for really well-characterised diseases. I've met two or three men who were been prescrined allopurinol for gout but refused to take it for some reason. At least one insisted that it would make the disease worse and what you really needed to do was eat lots of anti-oxidants and keep hydrated (and to be fair gout is one of the few diseases for which that well-known advice might imaginably help a little)
Its not as common as the people who tell you that they (or more likely their sister, their cousin, or their aunt) has some weird disease that They can't diagnose and how the stupid doctors keep on giving them the wrong medicine and they've had all the tests that there are and even the Specialists are still flummoxed and the doctor/nurse/whoever said they had never seen anything like it before in their life and it was such a big one and... Hang around in pubs enough and you can hear a variant of that one almost every nght.
I spend a lot of time in pubs. (The lifestyle choice that makes your liver ache)
[ 26. April 2012, 19:39: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't think Erroneous Monk was referring to the parents as defective adults. Rather, she was wondering if the parents might think of their children as defective adults.
Thanks for putting me right.
Mea maxima culpa, I withdraw it all with profuse apologies.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't think Erroneous Monk was referring to the parents as defective adults. Rather, she was wondering if the parents might think of their children as defective adults.
Thanks for putting me right.
Mea maxima culpa, I withdraw it all with profuse apologies.
It wasn't a well constructed sentence. None the less, I think you'd probably have to have already come to the conclusion that I was crass, unimaginative and superior to read it the way you did.
I'm sure you have your reasons.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What is an ideal behavior for a child? Ultimately we want children who are responsible adults who can stand on their own two feet. '
I'm a chronic clinical depressive with a relationship that limps along and a job that most people despise. Probably, most of all, I want my children not to be like me.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think you'd probably have to have already come to the conclusion that I was crass, unimaginative and superior to read it the way you did.
I can assure you I have absolutely no prior memory of other postings that lead me to that conclusion a priori.
Again my apologies. I misread.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm doing it because I think learning to behave politely is important for the child's well being, and self-control is important.
In fact, probably what drives most of our modes of discipline, is the idea that children will acquire suitable patterns of behaviour by practising them. Conformity will be encouraged, divergence by a range of methods discussed above.
"Adult behaviour" is of course the end-game in this respect (what that actually means is up to the individual parent). Couple that with the over-ambitious yearning of some parents to demonstrate that their children are somehow mature beyond their age group, you will find children being coerced into being "little adults" essentially by brute force.
Fortunately, other ideals prevail too, which afford the child modes of behaviour which are identified as age-conform childliness. But deciding where the fine line between childliness and childishness lies, and policing it properly, is the anguish of many a parent.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I spend a lot of time in pubs.
*Gasp* So that's where you get all your knowledge from? ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I knew people who asked me why I was talking to my babies, or why I discussed things with toddlers. It had never occurred to me NOT to. These people quite often talked to their cats, mind you! Haha!
Our DiL the psychologist tries to avoid tantrums and other acting-out behaviors by teaching Granddaughter to express herself verbally. When she was smaller she actually went to baby sign language class; now she's verbally expressing herself, and can clearly state, "I'm mad," or "I'm sad." Then her mom or dad can ask her why she's sad or mad, and do whatever explaining or comforting needs to be done. Or, if it's some sort of Terrible Two petulance, her parents will respond with something like "You'll get over it," and then stop paying attention to her...with the motive, of course, of getting her to realize that she gets much more positive attention from her parents when she's not peevish.
My partner and I are both very impressed by this very thought-out campaign. DP was a busy working mom when her kids were small, and while she ran a tight ship with them, she didn't have the time or the childcare expertise to work out all of these strategies. I think she relied on her military training, LOL.
We're wondering though, going back to what others have said about siblings' differing dispositions, what's going to happen if and when Child #2 comes along and s/he's a difficult child. Grandaughter's daddy, BTW, was DP's problem child -- I've heard the family stories, and he was a TERROR until he got through high school. His brother was the "good" sibling.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I spend a lot of time in pubs.
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
*Gasp* So that's where you get all your knowledge from?
Perhaps the thing I think is "not often said in pubs" is in fact said on 0.1% of occasions. Therefore I don't ever remember hearing it said, but Ken hears it quite a lot.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I spend a lot of time in pubs.
*Gasp* So that's where you get all your knowledge from?
Actually, maybe it is, for some kinds of knowledge!
I mean, in the last few weeks - say since just before Easter - I have met in bars and at least brieftly talked to (mostly not long or serious conversations of course, but some are) people whose present or past occupations might be described as (in alphabetical order): actor, bar staff [of course], builder, chef, childcare worker, city trader, cleaner, computer programmer, cook, curate, dancer, DJ, drug dealer [allegedly], electrician, fire fighter, foster parent, gangster [his word, not mine], gardener, gas fitter, hairdresser, hotelkeeper, housing officers, journalist, local government officer, magazine editor, manager in a bank, motorbike courier, musician, nursery nurse, painter and decorator, permanently unemployed, photographer plumber, police officer, postman, premises manager, printer, residential care worker, restaurant owner, roofer, sailor, scaffolder, school dinner lady, security guard, shop assistant, soldier, student, taxi driver, teacher, teaching assistant, train driver, used car dealer, van driver, and waiter.
For a version of "bar" that includes a couple of pubs, the bar in the college I work in, a football ground, and a drink after a funeral.
That's a wider slcie of society than I am likely to meet at work or even at church. And conversations are more likely in a pub than at work or church.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0