Child Discipline

[betsy]

As a childcare provider, I sense a certain wariness among parents in disciplining their children. Society had slowly turned that everyone can interfere how a parent deals with her child.

Let me just make it clear that as a care-provider, corporal punishment is not acceptable in my daycare.

I believe that only a parent can use it as a form of discipline.

Here's an example.

A 4 year old child was being picked up by her mom. The mom was sitting on her heels as she puts the shoes on her child who was sitting on the steps, so she's eye-level with her. The child started becoming difficult and the mother tried to cajole her to listen. The child suddenly slapped her mother soundly on the cheek. The mother said, "Please don't hit me. It hurts." The child responded by doing exactly the same thing. Thhe mother repeated "Please don't hit me. It hurts." The child hit her again.

All this time, my other children were witnessing this display.

The next day, it was the father who picked up the child. She was the last one in my daycare that time.

She started being difficult....and she hit her dad. The dad said, "Hey, no hitting." I notice that he's conscious of my presence, and holding back.

FInally I said...."Well Paul, you're the dad. Don't worry about me" Then I went out of the house and left them.

The girl was crying but behaved when they came out. I think Dad spanked her.

Was I wrong? Did I do the right thing?

[Drea]

You absolutely did the right thing betsy.

The child needed to be spanked.

Children need their parents to be in control. The mother you described was clearly not in control. I cringe when I think of how this little girl will treat her mother in 10 years.

Children "test" their parents. We've all done it. We push to see what the limits are because, as children, we want limits and boundaries that are well defined so we can feel secure.

The mother should have said to the child "When we get home you are going to get a spanking because slapping me is unaccaptable. You can think about that for the ride home".

This gives the mom a chance to calm down before the spanking so she doesn't spank out of anger.

My mom did this to us as kids... we'd have to go outside and then come in one at a time for our spanking. Gave us time to think about what we'd done rather than just being mad at our parent for the spanking.

[PocketRocket]

Agreed and agreed.

Some kids listen, and some don't.

Some kids need a swat just to get their attention.

In any case, a child needs to learn that every act has it's consequences, whether the act and subsequent consequence is good or bad.

Good behaviour should be reinforced.

Bad behavious should be discouraged by whatever means is necessary to be effective.

IOW, if a kid know he/she did something wrong, and is clearly upset about having done something wrong, then corporal punishment is not necessary as the knowledge of wrongdoing is often enough.

But if the kid, upon being informed he/she has done wrong, either doesn't care, or blatantly repeats the same sort of behaviour, then a stronger message must be sent.

Our jail system is full of ex-kids who were never taught that actions have consequences.

[Black Dog]

So let me get this straight: the best way to show kids that hitting is not okay is to hit them?

Our jail system is full of ex-kids who were never taught that actions have consequences.

I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes. I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems.

[betsy]

So let me get this straight: the best way to show kids that hitting is not okay is to hit them?

Our jail system is full of ex-kids who were never taught that actions have consequences.

I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes. I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems.

Gee who can really say?

All I can say is spanking had been acceptable for ages...and the days of my parents and grandparents had produced a population of mostly upright and responsible citizens. I had been spanked in my childhood...most friends or acquaintances in my generation had admit having been spanked....but we all seem to bel okay.

It's just been in recent years that this almost zero tolerance to spanking had come into effect. And yet amazingly....this coincides with the growing numbers of bullying - an aggression related to violence...or threat of violence.

Perhaps we are giving the wrong signals to children.

One of my steadfast rules for kids in my daycare was "NO HITTING." But due to the rise of bullying incidents in schools....my school kids whine to me and express frustrations over how teachers seem to be indifferent to bullying incidents...and one example of indifference was witnessed by one of my parents, I decided to change my rule.

Now I say : DON'T HIT FIRST. Then I explain that if no one will hit first, there wouldn't be any hitting at all.

I'm all for children learning how to stand up for themselves. I do not wish to "tie up my childrens' hands" by a rule that forbids them to defend themselves.

So back to the idea of spanking generating more violence....maybe we should seriously re-think that.

[betsy]

I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems.

I understand the concern about violence....but I think the no-spanking advocates are really looking in the wrong direction and I can only question what the real motivation is.

If my aim is to eliminate physical violence, I would start by throwing that television out into the garbage....along with those video games. Right now, every household has two or more tv....and every child has a form of two or more types of video games.

So far I have not heard this endorsement or demand for a ban on these products that had invaded every homes....and had been slowly disensitizing our children.

Reality Shows that demeans and verbally abuse participants, TV shows with characters the epitome of rudeness are being hailed and more popular than ever.

I do not wish for any ban. I'm just making a point.

[August1991]

The child suddenly slapped her mother soundly on the cheek. The mother said, "Please don't hit me. It hurts." The child responded by doing exactly the same thing.

In general;, four year olds don't just hit people. It looks like this kid learned to hit people from someone.

It's just been in recent years that this almost zero tolerance to spanking had come into effect. And yet amazingly....this coincides with the growing numbers of bullying - an aggression related to violence...or threat of violence.

You have/provide no evidence of that. I suspect on the contrary that bullying and violent behaviour between individuals and within families is lower now than, say, 300 years ago.

In my experience, mistreatment and suffering hardship don't make people better; they just make them meaner.

Sweet reason is always better and works often with even very young children. When it doesn't, there is a difference between holding a child's forearm to prevent them from swinging and striking a child's head with one's hand. I don't think I have ever seen anything so brutal or as humiliating as seeing a father once strike his son's head in a public place. (This was abroad, not in Canada.)

FInally I said...."Well Paul, you're the dad. Don't worry about me" Then I went out of the house and left them.

The girl was crying but behaved when they came out. I think Dad spanked her.

Was I wrong? Did I do the right thing?

I suppose you removed the public humiliation of the child, and it is ultimately up to the parent to raise a child.

So let me get this straight: the best way to show kids that hitting is not okay is to hit them?

Good question.

If my aim is to eliminate physical violence, I would start by throwing that television out into the garbage....along with those video games. Right now, every household has two or more tv....and every child has a form of two or more types of video games.

I don't know if you have ever suffered or witnessed physical violence in your life but believe me, there is absolutely no comparison between cartoon/TV violence and the real thing. It is one thing to see a movie about, say, New York City and it is quite another to walk its streets.

Even verbal abuse, while sometimes horrific, is not like physical abuse.

Again, people's lives and relations in the past were filled with all kinds of violence, despite the lack of TV or movies.

[Black Dog]

All I can say is spanking had been acceptable for ages...and the days of my parents and grandparents had produced a population of mostly upright and responsible citizens. I had been spanked in my childhood...most friends or acquaintances in my generation had admit having been spanked....but we all seem to bel okay.

Well, there's no real consensus on the outcome sof spanking. Personally, it make smore sense to err on teh side of caution, or in this case, not hitting your kids.

It's just been in recent years that this almost zero tolerance to spanking had come into effect. And yet amazingly....this coincides with the growing numbers of bullying - an aggression related to violence...or threat of violence.

Or is it that bullying is simply getting more play? In other words, practices that were common place and acceptable a few decades ago are now precieved as harmful. There's so many othe rfactors at work (such as the rise in single parent homes, the decline infamily incomes etc.) that connecting a decline in spanking with social harm is difficult.

One of my steadfast rules for kids in my daycare was "NO HITTING." But due to the rise of bullying incidents in schools....my school kids whine to me and express frustrations over how teachers seem to be indifferent to bullying incidents...and one example of indifference was witnessed by one of my parents, I decided to change my rule.

I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between indifference and corporal punishment.

I'm all for children learning how to stand up for themselves. I do not wish to "tie up my childrens' hands" by a rule that forbids them to defend themselves.

But you're not talking about spanking anymore. There's a difference between teaching school-aged kids how to deal with bullies and teaching toddlers the basics of social interaction.

I understand the concern about violence....but I think the no-spanking advocates are really looking in the wrong direction and I can only question what the real motivation is.

If my aim is to eliminate physical violence, I would start by throwing that television out into the garbage....along with those video games. Right now, every household has two or more tv....and every child has a form of two or more types of video games.

So far I have not heard this endorsement or demand for a ban on these products that had invaded every homes....and had been slowly disensitizing our children.

Reality Shows that demeans and verbally abuse participants, TV shows with characters the epitome of rudeness are being hailed and more popular than ever.

I do not wish for any ban. I'm just making a point.

But it's a point unsupported by the evidence. Violent video games and TV have been increasingly prevelant, yet there seems to be a negative correlation with violent crime (eg: U.S. violent crime rate per 100,000:

1974=47.7; 2004=21.1) .

Frankly, kids are more likely to be influenced by immediate sources-parents and peers-than the media.

[Argus]

So let me get this straight: the best way to show kids that hitting is not okay is to hit them?

How do you learn not to put your fingers into a fire?

Young children will be violent until they learn there are consequences of commiting violence. Getting pain every time you deliver it teaches better than soft words of reproach.

[Black Dog]

How do you learn not to put your fingers into a fire?

If spanking worked the same way, then you'd only have to do it once. Clearly that's not the case.

Young children will be violent until they learn there are consequences of commiting violence. Getting pain every time you deliver it teaches better than soft words of reproach.

Or it teaches that violence is sometimes okay. Like when you are bigger than the person you're hitting. Spanking is not a lesson: it is a reaction. It doesn't impart any message as to why the certain behaviours are wrong, only that certain behaviours elicit certain unishments in certain situations.

[Melanie_]

I occasionally gave my kids a swat on the bum, but pretty rarely. Mostly I just set firm rules and followed through with consequences when they broke them (ie, for a 5 year old, playing outside when I was in the house, going past the fence of the third house down meant that you were indoors for the rest of the day). I wanted them to see that their actions would have logical consequences, and the consequences would be connected to the actions. I think it makes more sense than a spanking, and the lesson is learned. I agree with Black Dog, though, that if you want a child to learn not to hit, hitting them yourself defeats the purpose. The logical consequence would be that I don't like being hit, and I'm not going to sit in front of the child to get hit again. She can either put her shoes on herself or come to the car as she is.

I think more parents today are concerned with being their kid's friend, and not wanting to seem too tough on them. I've always taken the perspective that my kids have plenty of friends, but only one mom, and its not a popularity contest.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

If spanking worked the same way, then you'd only have to do it once. Clearly that's not the case.

It does't always work with the fire, either. Hence the Darwin Awards.

I agree with this to a point...

I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes

I'll bet most of the ones behind bars were physically disciplined to the point of beatings, and probably many of them were by drunks, etc.

I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems.

I disagree. I'd say that until recently, say the last 20 years (of the last 30,000), corporal punishment (spanking, forcibly restraining, or just a good-old fashioned kick in the ass) was practiced by over 99% of all people at some point.

Recently, even the federal justice system has taken a turn away from 'punishment' and, (and I claim that they are related) from people having their own accountability and responsibility.

[betsy]

I support the parents' rights to use spanking should they want to. But I do not agree that anyone other than the parent or legal guardian should.

As a careprovider, I had learned different ways to be more effective and I see where errors are.

Here are common mistakes:

The one-two-three method. Parents say: Okay Junior, stop swinging the cat....I say stop it. One.....two.... (and then Junior obeys). Good boy Junior.

This method of discipline becomes a game to a very young child.

Threatening a consequence you know you cannot keep. "If you don't stop that, I'll go home and leave you here with your babysitter!"

Negotiations. To me that means a form of bribery. Anyway how do you negotiate with a three year old?

To me the kind of negotiation will be: If you don't do as you're told, you'll find yourself sitting in one place for a very long time.

Time-out method done wrong. When I put a child to do time out, I like him to feel bored and miserable sitting all by himself. That's the whole point.

Oh, they try to engage me in conversations as a form of entertainment while they sit....but I don't bite into it. Instead, I say: "sorry, I don't feel like talking. Besides you're in a time-out. You're supposed to be thinking why you are in a time-out."

Consistentency. Once you become inconsistent with your methods, you lose credibility and you're back to square one.

Fairness. You want them to feel a sense of justice....and being fair makes them know and understand that you are not singling anyone.

Punishment fits the crime and age.

[August1991]

Negotiations. To me that means a form of bribery. Anyway how do you negotiate with a three year old?

To me the kind of negotiation will be: If you don't do as you're told, you'll find yourself sitting in one place for a very long time.

Interesting post, betsy. I'll take this one quote.

I don't see any real difference between "bribery" as you call it and the threat of being hit, actually being hit, being sent to one's room or getting something good for dessert.

I think more parents today are concerned with being their kid's friend, and not wanting to seem too tough on them. I've always taken the perspective that my kids have plenty of friends, but only one mom, and its not a popularity contest.

I don't think there is any doubt that a parent and a friend are two very different relationships. But I don't see why a parent has to be an authoritarian or "tough", even with a young child.

Ultimately, it is all the constraints of the outside world (including dealing with friends) that a child will have to face. More importantly, the child has the power to change those constraints. Life is not a one way street.

I think children should be free to choose as much as they can as soon as they can, as long as the consequences of the choices are clear to them.

Admittedly, this depends enormously on the child's personality and preferences.

I have often felt that the single most important thing in raising children is listening to them.

[Drea]

I agree with Betsy.... you are not your child's friend.

There is a huge difference between spanking and beating -- a child that is beaten doesn't learn anything except beatings are how to get someone to do what you want. Spankings are a consequence of bad behaviour.

For those who don't believe in spanking what would you have done if you were the mother of the slapping 4 yo? Very small chilren don't understand the relationship between (for example) losing their "Barney watching" privileges for a week and the fact that they were hitting mom 1/2 hour ago.

Many of us, some of who are parents, some grandparents, got spankings. Even by our teachers. Today a student can say "f**k you" to the teacher (or their parents) with no consequence at all -- both the teacher and the parent's hands are tied by bleeding hearts who equate an honest spanking with beating.

[Black Dog]

I'll bet most of the ones behind bars were physically disciplined to the point of beatings, and probably many of them were by drunks, etc.

Ths the problem with spanking. There's always the risk of things getting out of hand especially when punishment is administered in anger (the catch here is that the less immediate the punishment, the less it is associated with the behaviour and therefore the less effective it becomes. Thus, "cooling off" before spanking defeats the purpose of spanking.)

[PocketRocket]

In general;, four year olds don't just hit people. It looks like this kid learned to hit people from someone.

Are you kidding me??? Some kids start hitting almost as soon as they're able to swing their arm.

Not all kids do this, but certainly there are many kids who simply lash out when annoyed or frustrated.

And if your argument is simply that it's "learned behaviour", then who taught the first caveman to swing a club???

Violence is an inherent part of our nature that must be dealt with rather than denied.

This extends to kids, else the problem of schoolyard scraps would not be anywhere near its current scope.

Some kids can be spoken to with soft words, and will take those words to heart.

Some kids need an attention-grabber, and a slap on the hand is usually more than enough for a small child.

Either way, my argument, which was echoed a bit later in the thread, was that people need to be aware that actions have consequences. Plain and simple.

If a kid is constantly allowed to get away with rotten behaviour, then his/her "learned behaviour" will simply be that he/she can get whatever he/she wants, through whatever means necessary, without any negative consequence whatsoever.

An ex-neighbour of mine is a great example of this. Three male kids who could do no wrong. No matter whether it was another child or an adult who aproached the parents of these 3 hellions, the parents would always simply deny that the boys had done anything, and believe me, they did plenty.

It was unbelievable. You could literally watch the kids throw a rock through a window, go immediately to their parents and tell them about it, and teh parents would just stand there and say "No, no, no. There's no way he did that".

Of course, when asked, the kid would deny it with a sweet smile at mom and dad.

I recall one incident stole a brand new bike from another neighbour's kid. The second kid's dad went to talk to the offender's parents' The little brat told his folks that "She gave it (the bike) to me". They stood there and refused to give back the bike because "There you go, your daughter gave her bike to my son, so you can't have it back".

Things like this happened on a regular basis. I had both a snowmobile and a 10-speed bike wrecked by the eldest boy. Both times he told his folks that I said he could use the item in question. Both times the "usage", and breakage, happened while I was away for a couple days.

Great way to teach your kids about values and consequences.

One of the brats is now doing time for murder. Both the others had criminal records by the time they were 18.

All three had at least 1 charge for some sort of violent offence. All three had been kicked out of school by age 16 for various incidents of mischief, fighting, or worse.

[betsy]

Negotiations. To me that means a form of bribery. Anyway how do you negotiate with a three year old?

To me the kind of negotiation will be: If you don't do as you're told, you'll find yourself sitting in one place for a very long time.

Interesting post, betsy. I'll take this one quote.

I don't see any real difference between "bribery" as you call it and the threat of being hit, actually being hit, being sent to one's room or getting something good for dessert.

I think more parents today are concerned with being their kid's friend, and not wanting to seem too tough on them. I've always taken the perspective that my kids have plenty of friends, but only one mom, and its not a popularity contest.

I don't think there is any doubt that a parent and a friend are two very different relationships. But I don't see why a parent has to be an authoritarian or "tough", even with a young child.

Ultimately, it is all the constraints of the outside world (including dealing with friends) that a child will have to face. More importantly, the child has the power to change those constraints. Life is not a one way street.

I think children should be free to choose as much as they can as soon as they can, as long as the consequences of the choices are clear to them.

Admittedly, this depends enormously on the child's personality and preferences.

I have often felt that the single most important thing in raising children is listening to them.

Choices. As long as the consequences are clear to them.

A 4 year old chosed not to wear a winter coat in the middle of winter.

"No Junior, please wear your coat. It's freezing out there. If you don't, you'll get sick. You'll end up with pneumonia. You could die."

Gee, it's a rare 4 year old who'd even care. Maybe you'll get a response of "what's pneumonia, daddy?"

But in the end, after all the lenghty explanation of what pneumonia is, all you'll hear is "I don't have to."

So clearly, the consequences are made known to him. And he still insists. Now what?

It's good to have choices. Choices such as, "Junior, you want Cereals or pop tarts?"

But clearly, there is a limit where-in children are given that choice.

BTW, there is nothing wrong in being an "authoritarian." We live in a society where there is authority. The sooner children recognize that there are rules in life to follow, the better it is for the child.

[betsy]

In general;, four year olds don't just hit people. It looks like this kid learned to hit people from someone.

Are you kidding me??? Some kids start hitting almost as soon as they're able to swing their arm.

Not all kids do this, but certainly there are many kids who simply lash out when annoyed or frustrated.

And if your argument is simply that it's "learned behaviour", then who taught the first caveman to swing a club???

Violence is an inherent part of our nature that must be dealt with rather than denied.

This extends to kids, else the problem of schoolyard scraps would not be anywhere near its current scope.

Some kids can be spoken to with soft words, and will take those words to heart.

Some kids need an attention-grabber, and a slap on the hand is usually more than enough for a small child.

Either way, my argument, which was echoed a bit later in the thread, was that people need to be aware that actions have consequences. Plain and simple.

If a kid is constantly allowed to get away with rotten behaviour, then his/her "learned behaviour" will simply be that he/she can get whatever he/she wants, through whatever means necessary, without any negative consequence whatsoever.

An ex-neighbour of mine is a great example of this. Three male kids who could do no wrong. No matter whether it was another child or an adult who aproached the parents of these 3 hellions, the parents would always simply deny that the boys had done anything, and believe me, they did plenty.

It was unbelievable. You could literally watch the kids throw a rock through a window, go immediately to their parents and tell them about it, and teh parents would just stand there and say "No, no, no. There's no way he did that".

Of course, when asked, the kid would deny it with a sweet smile at mom and dad.

I recall one incident stole a brand new bike from another neighbour's kid. The second kid's dad went to talk to the offender's parents' The little brat told his folks that "She gave it (the bike) to me". They stood there and refused to give back the bike because "There you go, your daughter gave her bike to my son, so you can't have it back".

Things like this happened on a regular basis. I had both a snowmobile and a 10-speed bike wrecked by the eldest boy. Both times he told his folks that I said he could use the item in question. Both times the "usage", and breakage, happened while I was away for a couple days.

Great way to teach your kids about values and consequences.

One of the brats is now doing time for murder. Both the others had criminal records by the time they were 18.

All three had at least 1 charge for some sort of violent offence. All three had been kicked out of school by age 16 for various incidents of mischief, fighting, or worse.

Oh I absolutely agree with you. A parade pf children had come and gone through my daycare...and there were some that you could swear were spawns of the devil.

Right now I have a two and half year old whose face looks so much like a cherub....but believe me, his parents are going crazy trying to figure him out. He just wants to hurt other children. Period.

From purposefully running them over with any toys on wheels, shoving and grabbing. He slyly looks over to me to see if I'm watching him. Several times I saw him on the verge of doing something but that he happened to see that I was observing....he just stopped in mid-track of what he was about to do (grabbing)...then turned the sweetest innocent smile on me.

The parents are gentle, now-generation types of parents who just talked so kindly and softly to him.

One time, my three-year old told the parents boldly "He was bad. He hit me. Next time he hits me again, I'll hit him back."

The poor mom just said..."oh but you're older than him. If you hit him, he'll only learn that hitting is okay."

Wow! I just kept my mouth shut.

Btw, the terrible-two's period I've notice go by like a jekyll and hyde syndrome. A period of goodness followed by a period of rottenness...and so on.

[jamiesmom]

While I agree with those who support the logic of the idea that spanking a child in response to hitting only serves to reinforces the behavior, I know for a fact that parent after parent gives a child numerous time outs, and groundings and privelege removal. This repetition show that these non-spanking punishments also could be deemed useless, because one time out simply does not cure a child of the behavior. In fact, I learned better from the few spankings I ever received as a child than from any other method. I believe that there is such a thing as a healthy fear of your parents, and it is a good thing. I remember clearly the "bad" kids from elementary and high school, and believe me, their behavior is NOTHING compared to the "bad" kids today. As the trend has shifted from corporal punishment and strict parenting (including less responsibility and participation in work at home) to passive reasoning and ridiculously full extracurricular schedules, kids aren't learning to earn anything. They assume that all their sports and fun are a right, not a privelege. And people wonder why kids are tougher to handle nowadays. This may sound really harsh, but I am tired of people not being accountable for why their kids have no respect for them. Anyone agree?

[arif]

Betsy,

I think good parenting can be done fine without corporal punishment. Probably if the parent himself or herself is disciplined in the application of corporal punishment, it wouldn't cause great harm. I'm not too sure, but I don't think psychological studies offer much support to its usefulness.

thing is, you get parents who lose their own discipline in using it, so if you didn't begin with a rule in your head that you're not going to use it, then it could lead to damage.

For myself, from a very young age, I've followed "ahimsa" or non-violence from Gandhi's tradition. So, I've never been in a fight since grade 6. I would never spank my child. I'm pretty sure I could have discipline with them, but I haven't had kids yet so we'll see.

Arif

[Blackguard]

I hope I will never hit my children as a form of punishment. I even hope I will never scream at my children.

Since my son was very small, I have been teaching him that I'm the one who decides. When can negociate, and sometimes he can have his way if there is no reason for him not to, but if I say no and he insists, I remind him : "Who decided?" to which he replies :"Papa!".

End of argument.

If ever there is a temper tentrum, it is straight to the bedroom, or isolation if we're not at home. I tell him he has to stay there until he can stop crying and continue on. It is always the same. I go check on him, ask him, if he's done crying, and when he agrees we go back to what we were doing. What I think works the best is consistency. I think Kids respond amazingly well to that.

I teach him to hit. I show him how. I hit him too, when we play (never hard enough to hurt him, but hard enough that he understands). I show him how to fight with a stick. He never hits any kids, me or his mother.

I really like the "Don't hit first" rule, that's a great idea.

I find that by being consistant about what is acceptable, what is not, and what is the response, I never have to get angry. I remember my parents being patient for a long time and then bursting in a violent act, be it screaming or hitting. I don't think I learned anything good from that, wereas I think my son is learning very well what the limits are, and he is growing into a really well behaved child. Knock on wood!

[betsy]

Another awful teachings of the now-generation is the weird concept of "sharing".

Kids nowadays seemed to think that they can come up to someone who's playing with a toy and DEMAND that he/she shares it with him. You always hear the automatic response of adults as soon as someone complains that "he doesn't want to share." Junior, you have to share.

The rule "wait for your turn" does not apply anymore. And learning CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS is unheard of. Consideration for others is one of the most important value that a child must learn.

This knew idea of "sharing" produces two negatives.

1. It fosters bullying. An approved type of bullying at that.

2. The other child is psychologically being primed to become a "push-over".

When a child indicates to me that he wants to play with a toy that someone else is playing with, I ask the one playing if he would like to share or just wants to play by himself. If he just wants to play by himself....I respect that. I tell the other kid that he can have it when the other boy is done playing with it. That he sould wait for his turn.

They DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO SHARE.

[Social Revolutionist]

I agree with spanking completely, a child has to be given boundaries and they can not always just be told to a 4 year old, they need to be made clear. A parent teaches a young child values and what they believe is right and wrong. Once a child matures enough (soo that they respect others, ...etc etc) then that is when a choice should be given for them to decide in what they believe in. But spanking under some circumstances, to enforce strong boundaries of right and wrong is acceptable soo long as it does not become abuse.

I might only be fifteen but my parents I believe have done a pretty good job raising me, I was taught what was right and wrong, and to respect other cultures. But before long, grade 3-5 my parent's influence began to diminish, my friends and peers, became my main influence.

I was a relatively sheltered child and I was certainly bullied and picked on, but things changed when my parents got divorced, I became more exposed to the real world. I became aware of what was really happening in the world, I developed my own opinion in politics and religion, without much influence from parents that weren't there like they had been before.

Friends and peers will always have a certain advantage to influence over parents after a certain age. So in the end a parent can only teach their kids whats wrong and right, whether by force or words. A parent can shelter a kid through they're life but at some point, for better or worse a parent must let they're kid chose their path.

[YankAbroad]

The most annoying people in public are parents who allow their young children to dominate them physically and verbally, and who are reduced to "negotiating" (or even begging) with them over their behaviour.

If I told my parents "no" or ignored a command to stop doing something which was disruptive, destructive or rude, I'd be whacked upside the head. And I turned out fine.