TheZach stop lurking around and step into the ring.

[ApotheosisIV]

-- block of text probably mentioning how WP sucks badly

whatever

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

There's a difference between discipline and aggression. Which is the entire reason there's such an anti-physical punishment movement amongst parents nowadays, like spanking, etc., mainly because many individuals in the past didn't comprehend that difference and beat the shit outta kids in the guise of "discipline". --So it's the rubberband effect where parents are prone to give too little discpline.

Setting boundaries, making limits, being the parent (as opposed to the child's "best friend"), and enforcing consequences are all possible without taking out the razor strap-- or, might I add, clipping a kid about the ear.

Which is total bullshit, because the kids in today's society run rampant and laugh at authority. Had we still had the discipline of the 60s and earlier, like the strap at school and a clip across the ear now and then, then there would be less violence in the schoolground, and less violence on the streets. It's protectionist nanny pseudo-intellectuals who know fuck all about raising kids while writing books on the subject who have fucked things up entirely. Time-outs don't work for kids when they have all the luxuriies in their rooms. Setting boundaries does fuck all when the kid says 'no, fuck that. I'll do what I want! And you can't stop me!' The crap on about so called rights. The only rights they should have are the rights that their parents give them, and the authorities that set the rules. The day that 'spare the rod and spoil the child' went out the window was the first step to the bullshit we have in the school system and the gang violence we have on the streets. Generation Y is a direct result of Nanny state discipline, and have a lot to answer for.

Once again, clearly you are not comprehending the differences between:

1. this so-called sensitivity training and being the kid's "friend"
2. true discipline with well-defined parent/child roles and appropriate boundaries
3. beating the fuck out of your kid

Gosh, gee, I know the differences are so SUBTLE, Chosen One, so let me explain a little further. The first option lets the child run amok (one which it sounds like the both of us thinks is a crock of shit, no?); the second is where physical means are usually not used but discipline and consequences are still properly enforced-- at the same time the child doesn't fear getting the crap beat out of him for doing something wrong; and third, your option, is where the answer is physical. So in your alternative, the child only learns to avoid certain things just out of fear... so once the parent is no longer in the picture to clip the person about the ear (like say when the kid grows up), then they're more prone to revert to doing what they like.

Is fear an unuseful motivator? No, absolutely not. Should it be the answer to a child's development? I hope not.

In 1 and 3, the person remains the moral equivalent of a 3 yo who fears getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Ideally, the 2nd option instills responsibility in the child, something they can take with them through life, since it is more of a cooperative relationship rather than the parent beating the shit out of the child and the child just submitting to avoid further pain.

I know it's subtle, but... 

Yes and no Sophist. I think that, and I am not arguing rights or wrongs here, a kid (or adult) "doing what they like when the parent is not there to clip them under the ear" is not nearly a foregone conclusion and I think you know that. It is simplifying the argument. Much in the way our fears or "self-imposed" values, desires, and hopes as adults ARE precisely because when the parent stops giving ourselves a hard time we become the parents and the inhibitors to our growth and pleasure.
The parent may be dead and buried yet the psychological modification on an impressionable mind runs deep impressions in the values of the adult mind.
THis is not to say that the "fear " is still there but the unpalatableness of a behaviour or the desire to avert a set behaviour may remain. The mind has matured and the adult has their own mores and values yet there are certain things.....

But look at me gibbering about psychology to someone who is trained in psychology and probably unleash a Pandora's Box of psychological-analytical kick-arsery on me. It is 12:30am I ought to be in bed. Night. 

I just think that while fear and desire of avoidance of physical pain are the only disciplines utilized on a child, then s/he will less likely to grow up having internalized those mores and "internal parent" than those children who were taught mental discipline. Am I simplifying this? Yes, I agree with you, I think I am-- merely for the sake of theoretical discussion.

But I feel that physical discipline teaches fear and pain avoidance-- and when one disciplines a child, one is indeed teaching. Using mental discipline teaches self-inhibition and respect.

And, Chosen One, no I am not a parent. I suspect I would make a good parent-- and not the be-your-child's-friend type of parent. Nor, I suspect, would I be the slap-your-child-around-till-he-does-what-you-want sort either. And you use a flawed argument, implying that by my not being a parent, that I cannot possibly speak knowledgeably about parenting and discipline. There will inevitably be experiences which I won't have should I continue to choose not to have children. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't proffer my opinion and that those opinions might not be good. What's more, I have been a child on the receiving end of the type of discipline I am promoting. My mother was not my "friend", she didn't pamper me, and she set boundaries which, because I respected her and she had worked hard to instill that respect, I did not often cross: she did not lay a hand on me. And if I do end up having any children, it is the type of discipline I will use with them, because it utilizes cooperation and fosters respect rather than distance and fear.

If the child doesn't do what you want, that doesn't mean you scream louder and hit harder. That means you use another approach.

[The_Chosen_One]

Yes, I'll give you that one, but what I am referring to is not abuse, it is the once in awhile spanking for misbehaviour that was used quite effectively to instill discipline when I was a kid. I don't have kids either, but I can see from those in society today that the total disregard they have for authority and parents is that they don't fear them. Discipline is meant to be a form of punishment (as well as a way of obeying rules etc), and spanking every now and then doesn't cause any physical harm. Or mental, for that fact. What causes the permanent damage is when you get people beating their kids just for the sake of it, and not really using any form of discipline at all. That is abuse, not a punishment for fucking up or wrongdoing. So if, for eg the kid down the street was getting beaten every day for just the littlest thing, then that would be classed as abuse. But if that same kid only got the strap every now and then for fucking up, and learned by that that he shouldn't do it again, then that is proper dicipline. As I said, time-outs don't work when kids have computers and TVs etc in their rooms; they probably spend most of their time in there anyway; whereas when I was a kid, if I got told to 'go to my room', because I didn't have much in the way of luxuries then, it obviously was meant more in the way of a punishment.

Now do you see the point?

[Pyraxis]

IMO, for discipline to be effective, whether or not physical force is used, the kid has to understand what they did wrong and how not to do it again. If there's mental damage, it comes from the chaos of arbitrary and impossible expectations. When combined with physical force, that would become physical abuse; without the physical force, it would be emotional abuse.

Unfortunately, parents of kids on the spectrum who either don't realize their kid is autistic, or don't understand autism well enough, end up punishing the kids for things which are no fault of their own - like a sensory-induced meltdown in a public place. Or they don't know how to communicate well enough with the kid to tell them what they did wrong, so to the kid it seems to come out of nowhere.

[The_Chosen_One]

Yeah, the reinforcement that why they are being punished in such a way must be upheld as well. If little Johnny has done something wrong, and he was spanked for it, he must have it explained to him, and told that if he fucks up again, that he may receive the same punishment. Abuse of the other hand, is where they continually get beaten for no real reason other than to get beaten.

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

Yeah, the reinforcement that why they are being punished in such a way must be upheld as well. If little Johnny has done something wrong, and he was spanked for it, he must have it explained to him, and told that if he fucks up again, that he may receive the same punishment. Abuse of the other hand, is where they continually get beaten for no real reason other than to get beaten.

At the same time, just telling the child what they've done wrong and why they're being punished doesn't guarantee the kid will actually "get it". I mean, particularly for younger ages, sometimes they just won't be able to understand. So coming at it from an adult perspective of understanding can create problems.

In which case, having some understanding of neurocognitive developmental stages throughout the lifespan (gasp, Psychology!!!) can be helpful. 

[The_Chosen_One]

True there, how easy is it to reason with a 2 year old? When you are in a shopping center, and you have a kid that is screaming that they want something, and you don't particualrly want to give in, what can be the first reaction? If used properly, physical discipline can work fine. But when it becomes abusive (which too many people tend to get confused with), then the physical harm happens, and the damage is done. I don't think it is an adult's right to abuse their kids, but I do think that they should be able to use whatever means WITHIN REASON at their disposal to discipline and raise their children.

[Callaway]

Yes, I'll give you that one, but what I am referring to is not abuse, it is the once in awhile spanking for misbehaviour that was used quite effectively to instill discipline when I was a kid. I don't have kids either, but I can see from those in society today that the total disregard they have for authority and parents is that they don't fear them. Discipline is meant to be a form of punishment (as well as a way of obeying rules etc), and spanking every now and then doesn't cause any physical harm. Or mental, for that fact. What causes the permanent damage is when you get people beating their kids just for the sake of it, and not really using any form of discipline at all. That is abuse, not a punishment for fucking up or wrongdoing. So if, for eg the kid down the street was getting beaten every day for just the littlest thing, then that would be classed as abuse. But if that same kid only got the strap every now and then for fucking up, and learned by that that he shouldn't do it again, then that is proper dicipline. As I said, time-outs don't work when kids have computers and TVs etc in their rooms; they probably spend most of their time in there anyway; whereas when I was a kid, if I got told to 'go to my room', because I didn't have much in the way of luxuries then, it obviously was meant more in the way of a punishment.

Now do you see the point?

I think that I see what you are saying, The Chosen One.  I think you are saying that parents should have the right to physically discipline their children if the parents think that is the most appropriate way to deal with certain types of behaviors, assuming that they don't become abusive. 

I was raised sort of like you were and I have spanked my daughter myself a few times, but I think that time outs or other non-physical punishments (such as logical consequences) work better for her for most issues that happen at home and that physical punishment should be more like a last resort rather than the first disciplinary tool for a parent to think of.  The root of discipline is the same as disciple and it means to teach someone.  I think that when a parent sends their child to her room, it does not necessarily have to be extremely punitive for it to be effective.  My daughter does not have a television or computer or any sort of video games in her bedroom, but the point of sending her to her room is usually for her to gain some control over herself, so if she picks up a book and reads it, I don't think that is counterproductive to that purpose.

My first reaction to her screaming for something in a store would not be to smack her.  I would probably take her out of the store, and she would never get the thing she was screaming for.  She really didn't do a lot of that, though.  She might melt down in a store, but not because she wanted something she didn't get. 

[The_Chosen_One]

Thank you Callaway.

[Al Swearegen]

 

As little kids the smack bottom was the prime motivation for my kids to stop indulging in "naughty" behaviour. As they got older the "count to three" was implemented. They then got a "choice" of whether or not they wanted to "push it". They also saw right away that what they are doing is wrong and ave an opportunity to stop and work towards resolution. This has been replaced by me holding up fingers. I don't think I have smacked my kids bottom for .....maybe 4 or five years. I don't know if they take the threat seriously anymore. What I do know is that they have excellent manners but when they slip up they do acknowledge their flaw and apologise. They are lovely kids with great values. They police their own behaviour and now what is expected and acceptable.

I have big issues with the PC police and of psychology in general as being shown as anything more than educated guesses and studies on educated guesses.

[The_Chosen_One]

As little kids the smack bottom was the prime motivation for my kids to stop indulging in "naughty" behaviour. As they got older the "count to three" was implemented. They then got a "choice" of whether or not they wanted to "push it". They also saw right away that what they are doing is wrong and ave an opportunity to stop and work towards resolution. This has been replaced by me holding up fingers. I don't think I have smacked my kids bottom for .....maybe 4 or five years. I don't know if they take the threat seriously anymore. What I do know is that they have excellent manners but when they slip up they do acknowledge their flaw and apologise. They are lovely kids with great values. They police their own behaviour and now what is expected and acceptable.

I have big issues with the PC police and of psychology in general as being shown as anything more than educated guesses and studies on educated guesses.

Yeah, and I know a number of parents who said they would "never smack their kids". The resolution usually lasted until the first one hit the terrible twos. Time-outs work with older kids (sometimes) but a quick swat speaks volumes. Once a kid realises that stacking on a turn leads to a smacked bum AND not getting what they want, most catch on pretty darned quickly.

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

but I do think that they should be able to use whatever means WITHIN REASON at their disposal to discipline and raise their children.

I do as well, I just think that using physical means is an unwieldy tool that even the best of parents could let it get away from them. Therefore, should generally be avoided. With such a tool, there can be a blurry line between discipline and abuse and it's too easy to cross over because parents aren't perfect.

[Natalia Evans]

I was spanked a lot when I was a kid. It was also because my mother would lose her temper for something I did and hit me for it. She said she had to work on it really hard not spank us kids because it was something done to her as a child. She certainly didn't want to do it to her own kids. She believes when a child gets to Kindergarten, they are too old for spankings, it is now done when they are really really naughty. She also believes you warn the child first before you spank them. You tell them not to do something and if they keep disobeying you, you ask them "Do you want a spanking?" If you spank them for no reason, they are not going to understand what they did wrong so therefore they will not learn.


But unfortunately it taught me it was okay to hit, so here I was hitting my own brothers and slapping their mouths and doing the same to my friends but I never did it in school because "it wasn't school behavior." Hitting was not allowed in school but at home it was allowed. I was ten when my mother finally told me only parents can spank their kids, kids cannot spank other kids because it is not their job.
I even treated my own brothers like they were my sons too. I copied my mother's behavior. Another funny thing, I would do the same to her like the time I said when I was six "If you say that again I will slap your mouth." She sent me to my room and I didn't know why.
My shrink said when I was 17 I took it all literal and my boyfriend said the same too. How do other children know on their own only parents can do that, not them?

[ApotheosisIV]

More children should be beaten.

[Lucifer]

More children should be beaten.

can we start with the 12 year old fucktard next door?  we could all take turns - the one who delivers the killing blow will be my friend for life.