How should Parents discipline children

[Guest]

If a child is setting fire to their sister, I would think professional help needs to step in.

What, like the Fire Department?

Edited September 21, 2014 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

What, like the Fire Department?

Too stupid a response.

[WestCoastRunner]

You can find a psychologist to say whatever you agree with. You can find all sorts of studies that say the same thing. And, you can find opposing views.

The problem is; a psychologist who believes in spanking knows that to say as such would invite complete hostility from the left.

You guys can't even separate spanking from child beating for crying out loud. This is another form of social engineering

I agree that we can find all sorts of studies to support our argument. But honestly, striking a kid makes no sense at all. If it has gotten to that point, then other methods need to be introduced, otherwise it just spirals out of control. It's very easy to lean on capital punishment once it has been introduced instead of learning more meaningful and effective methods of discipline.

Edited September 21, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[On Guard for Thee]

I wonder how many cases there are of kids setting fire to each other so as to require a beating. I'll let those who flog this kind of crap do the looking up on that stat. Oh, I'm sorry, did I use the word flog? Please, don't take that literally or get any ideas.

Edited September 21, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Hal 9000]

I agree that we can find all sorts of studies to support our argument. But honestly, striking a kid makes no sense at all. If it has gotten to that point, then other methods need to be introduced, otherwise it just spirals out of control. It's very easy to lean on capital punishment once it has been introduced instead of learning more meaningful and effective methods of discipline.

The punishment does have to fit the infraction.

If a child won't eat their vegetables, won't clean their room or forgets their bike helmet etc., then no, a spanking isn't the proper punishment and other solutions can work just fine. Situations where a child totally disrespects his parent (or caregiver) by hitting or spitting at them, gets ahold of a lighter, thievery (sometimes - depends on age), runs into the street or tries harming another child etc., a message has to be sent and I have no qualms about laying out a spanking for these serious infractions.

As I said, kids will manipulate and find their boundaries and some behaviours can not be excused. Kids need to know who is in charge and that that person knows whats best for them. My kids knew what their boundaries were, what limits could be stretched and what was totally unacceptable by an early age.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Guest]

Too stupid a response.

And yet...

[On Guard for Thee]

So I wonder where they learned to hit or spit at people? If a child gets hold of a lighter that might just be the grownups fault and if they burn the house down it's probably not because they are a 2 year old arsonist.

[Hal 9000]

So I wonder where they learned to hit or spit at people? If a child gets hold of a lighter that might just be the grownups fault and if they burn the house down it's probably not because they are a 2 year old arsonist.

Hitting isn't a learned behaviour, its natural, so is biting. As I said earlier, babies hitting (or biting) other babies is not at all uncommon.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hal 9000

[On Guard for Thee]

so a baby bites something because they are teething needs disciplinary action to the point of hitting the baby?

Edited September 21, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Hal 9000]

so a baby bites something because they are teething needs disciplinary action to the point of hitting the baby?

There you go again being intentionally obtuse. You don't know a whole lot of toddlers obviously.

[On Guard for Thee]

Call it what you want. I asked a question, you weren't able to answer.

[Hal 9000]

so a baby bites something because they are teething needs disciplinary action to the point of hitting the baby?

A 1-2 YO will hit, kick, bite, spit, shove...whatever they have to do to get a toy, attention from mom or dad, a spot in the sandbox, a treat...whatever. And I guarantee they've all done it at one point or another.

[Hal 9000]

Call it what you want. I asked a question, you weren't able to answer.

I can answer any question you want - if its an honest question, but it was a really dumb question.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think babies/children, notwithstanding some sort of birth/developmental defect, are completely at your disposal to learn. If they are not acting properly, perhaps it's because they have not been taught properly. Your position seems to suggest they are all born somewhat bad and therefore need correctional punishments. I suggest the over application of same often ends them up in correctional institutions. Maybe more emphasis on teaching and less on correcting.

[Hal 9000]

Babies are not born with common sense, discipline or empathy. Yes, that is all learned, but when and how? Until it is learned toddlers are by in large self absorbed, self indulgent little people.

3YO Johnny will shove 2YO Suzie to the ground to take her treat and not think a second about it - and asking Johnny how he feels about it doesn't make the slightest difference because all Johnny knows is that he's got the treat.

It's naive to assume differently.

[On Guard for Thee]

So then you beat 3 Y/O Johnny?

[Hal 9000]

So then you beat 3 Y/O Johnny?

Instead of trolling, why not add something to the discussion?

[Big Guy]

You do not have to pass a test, have a minimal IQ or get a licence to have children. Most first time parents have a very positive plan on how they will rear their children and try to apply that plan. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and they have to try other strategies. My practical experience is that the more children that you have then the less time that is available to impart on them behaviours that will protect them from harm. I was (and remain) a believer in corporal punishment for learning and behaviour modification. Personally, it has been successful for me and my family.

I have been in extended family social situations where the psychological approach is attempted by a few with the children dominating most of the time. I still question the long term effects of this parenting technique. How does the toddler react when he takes a toy away from another toddler, waits to get a time out and instead gets a punch in the nose from the original owner of the toy?

The saving grace is that perhaps when these non-violence toddlers start to interact with others, when there is no direct adult supervision present that the law of nature takes effect and peer "justice" will assist in behaviour modification.

[Rue]

Most of what I now will repeat comes from the Applied-Psycholology Counseling graduate studies curriculum I was taught mixed with further training in the court system as well as continuing education courses and then other graduate studies in law. Its a mix of pretty much what you see reflected today mainstream by the court system, child psychologists/psychiatrists, school counselors.

1. there is no one method to raise a child. No one method works better.

2. any form of discipline depends on the level of cognitive development of the target, i.e., you do not discipline a 4 year old the way you would a 16 year old;

3. in any form of discipline, the key is control-if the person giving the discipline lacks control, i.e., acts out with anger, rage, that emotional display undoes or circumvents, or will prevent any positive learning outcome;

4. for discipline to work it much teach a lesson, not simply instil fear;

5. discipline intended to instill fear can create blind obedience but also creates what is called passive aggressive reaction-the fear causes the blind obedience but no lesson is absorbed or learned, just anger and resentment which is stored into the sub-conscious or repressed and then eventually is acted out either in self mutilation or anger directed outwards on others or property;

6. amount of force in discipline is impossible to control if one is not in control of their emotions;

7. people who think they are in control when engaging in discipline often are not.

The above is pretty much a cross-cultural, cross religious set of axioms.

Now when you work in the court system and you see children who have been "abused" that abuse ranges in scale from 0 physical contact to the most extreme form of beatings and homicide on the other end of the scale at 10. That is simply the physical component. The next component is the same range on an emotional scale, and then take the same range again for mental component.

When abusing a child you can cause physical, emotional and mental (psychological) injury. Its very rare abuse does not involve all 3 but the correlation between the three is not as clear as you would think. For example with some children the same physical contact may cause much more emotional or psychological pain then other children.

A child for example who is extremely competitive, large and thrives in competitive body contact sports, as a general rule might be able to withstand a good spank on the butt far easier then say a frail, thin, extremely sensitive child who does not like competition and is shy.

You take each child as you find them. Each child has a chemistry as unique as th fingerprints on your hand or a snowflake. What might cause harm to one child, may not to another.

So with all the above in mind all I can say is abuse on children is usually a parent or authority figure who exerts too much power on them in a negative way often in the name of helping the child.

What we do know is this. Children need discipline. Discipline sets limitations. We know for example to become "good" at anything whether it be playing a musical instrument, engaging in a sport, painting, writing, learning academics, a mind needs to learn to be disciplined, i.e., do things in an orderly way.

Children who are not disciplined because of not having parents, or who have parents than do not discipline them get confused and they don't do well in later life. They clash with people because they are not used to being told no so they do not know how to compromise the key to becoming successful as an adult with others and developing a high emotional i.q.

A good and healthy mind is flexible, adapts to situations and has an inherent sense of danger, limitation and sensitivity towards others. All come of course from having good role models at the appropriate stages of life development. Not just a father and mother teach that but neighbours, good friends, grand-parents, teachers, organized clubs and sports, coaches, etc.

So now the question is, when do we know discipline has gone too far?

Here some the red flags we look for:

1-violence, i.e., bruises, bone breaks, visible marks

2-children who self--mutilate, i.e., cut themselves with a knife, razor, stab themselves, develop anorexia, bulimia, pull their hair out and eat it, studder, give off a particular body odour that comes from a chemical imbalance caused by stress

3-children severely over weight or under weight

4-poor health and dental hygiene

5-sexual promiscuity or early sexual behaviour and language referring to it that suggests a lack of respect for the person or body

6-extreme withdrawal, shyness, sadness, lack of emotion

7-flinching when someone comes near

8-skin rashes, constant head aches, children constantly being sick and run down.

All the above red flags are also looked for with sexual abuse, beatings, trauma.

So what is good discipline? Good discipline teaches not simply what was wrong, but goes on to show what the child SHOULD have done. Its only half the lesson to say what's wrong, you need to go on to say what the alternative should have been. You must take the negative and not leave it there, but turn it positive, i.e., the child steals from a store, you take them back to the store, return the item and apologize.

If the child bullied another child, you take them to that child and make them apologize and have the other child explain how it felt.

This of course is for children old enough.

With young children when you teach about danger, i.e., not touching a hot stove, sometimes slapping the child on the hand and saying NO! is effective. Its not cruel. At a certain age you need the child to react with fear of pain to avoid pain but then when they get older then you explain. No you can't reason with a 3 year old. Trying to debate them is silly, a child between 2 and 4 does not reason, they test and just getting then to understand no and yes is hard enough. Tone of voice sometimes works the best.

So should you hit a child. It should be a last resort. Its always better to try some other method. Hitting is not that effective. Its over-rated.

If a young man loses his temper, losing your temper while spanking him sends a pretty bad signal.

I am from the school of thought that with a young person losing control of their anger, the best thing is not simply hitting them but teaching discipline to control anger by bringing that child to martial arts, boxing, a sport that channels and redirects the anger.

Physical sports, is also a classic prevention tool that channels excess energy and prevents children from being angry too long. Anger acted out in children is usually a sign they are not physically active and eating bad food and their bodies are reacting to sugar, processed chemicals and salt and being sedentary in front of a computer.

Find a sport. Anything where a child exercises. A child up until18 should get 2 hours a day of exercise. That is half the problem. The other half the problem is developing the part of the mind that is today not being developed and that is the creative mind. Creative minds are a lot less likely to get angry and are much better at regulating anger by transforming it into creative expression, so things like music, painting, sculpturing, writing, reading, acting,

building things, carpentry, gardening.

All the things I am saying are common sense but we don't follow them anymore. We take children now as young as 2, sit them in front of computers and give them I phones. They become physical blobs staring at machines which cue their behaviour now. We cut out physical exercise, music and arts from school programs.

Kids eat junk food and sit all day playing violent games. Then we wonder why they are anti-social and act out? How the hell does a child learn to be social and pleasant with his or her eyes parked on an Iphone all day. People do not have dinner with each other anymore Everyone has dinner at different times in front of the t.v. and even if they are in a restaurant, everyone's cell phone is on.

So you all basically know common sense says, you have to spank your child sometimes but the key is not to lose your temper, injure or in any way humiliate the child. Humiliate your child, all you do is cause them to internalize their anger and repress it, i.e., hide it and until its expressed in other behaviour at someone else weaker than them and thus the cycle of violence will continue.

I don't think what I said is magic. Its pretty much what family mediators, counselors, police, teachers, guidance counselors,pediatricians, family doctors, child psychologists/psychiatrists will tell you.

We also know in some cultures physical beatings and humiliation is justified by religious beliefs.

Fundamentalist orthodox religions tend to lend themselves to justifying violence and punishment.

Bottom line is we must discipline, we just have to do it in a controlled and non humiliating way that promotes a positive lesson and a message that points out when you do something negative, there is a negative consequence and you are responsible for having to heal or undo that negative consequence or it will continue to haunt you until its resolved.

Now mind you people with certain mental illnesses such as sociopaths have no moral compass. You cannot discipline them. You can only contain them and keep them restrained. They will not learn a thing.

Finally I would like to address the anger over Bush's film. I appreciate some of you did not like his point. There is a valid point there though if I can explain it.

Society sends mixed signals. On the one hand we get all shocked about slapping a kid with a stick but then what... do you not find it ironic the same people shocked at a man swatting his kid with a stick that drew blood, have no problem watching that man engage in a sport where he regularly engages in violence with other adults? Who we kidding. We pay that man hundreds of millions and worship him as a God for engaging in a violent sport, then get all shocked when he is brutal to his child?

We will pay and scream and cheer on Mike Tyson then act all shocked when he beats his wife or rapes a girl?

Oh come on. Bush brought up that point precisely. We couch our selective self righteousness. We show movies of girls being slapped on their buttox for sexual thrills and then act all noise out of joint over spanking a kid's butt? There are some very serious conflicting signals coming out.

We pay big money and enjoy violent spectacles then wonder how to "discipline" our children?

We live in a violent society that rationalizes its violence in the most conflicted ways.

I tend to think those of you angry at him need to look again at the point he made. Some of you went so far as to say the film he showed was pornography. Could it be you are mad at him because he is reminding you of a part of all of us-the part that does not want to admit their is sexual arousal in violence and its part and parcel of the problem? Some of us get outraged not because of the violence, but because are conflicted over the realization violence excites and entertains us and mixes in to our screwed up beliefs about discipline.

Some of us feel guilty about ANY discipline because we are in fact in denial and trying to block out our unresolved sexual conflicts with it and other unresolved feelings from are own childhood.

I am here to say don't get mad at Bush. Look to the issue he presented in that film. Why do you think that movie was made?

What you think when the young woman places her hands on the other's buttox to magically heal her its not a not so subtle homo-erotica vision?

You know how many men out there are beating women and getting off on it sexually?

Its not a pleasant topic no, but in my line of work, the line between simple physical abuse and discipline gone wrong and sexual molestation is a fine one, most often a blur.

Rape or sexual assault first and foremost is a crime of violence. Its a behaviour of someone who does not respect limits.

As Freud said civil society can only begin when humans learn to repress their violence and channel it elsewhere.

Hope that helps the discussion and answers directly the issues West is looking for discussion on.

No black and white answers, just guidelines and foods for thought.

Bottom line is most of you know where those limits should be.

Yah yah typos. I tried editing a lot of them.,

Edited September 21, 2014 by Rue

[Hal 9000]

Good post^^, although I'm waiting for OGFT to chime in with a "you thought that video was sexy" comment.

[Big Guy]

This thread may add to the current one "Parenting by Smacking" as to the different approaches to corporal punishment by current posters.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Big Guy

[overthere]

My observation is that babies spend more time successfully training their parents than the other way around.

In days they can get their handlers to feed them, cuddle them, change their diapers and many other things- on command and without delay.