As a child who was spanked, there was a single moment in my life where I realized as a teen, my parents didn't spank for discipline, but they were just shitty parents. So being raised in a conservative household, obviously Fox News was on. Glenn Beck was talking about spanking your children. And he said one of the most profound things that I honestly couldn't wrap my head around for physical punishment. He said "After you spank them, you hug them. And remind them that you love them and say it!"
That was the moment I realized my parents were just abusive and thought they could alter behavior just by beating us. I hear it all the time with their dogs. If they do something they don't like, they don't take time to properly train them, it's straight to an angry tone and "I'm gonna get a stick." Meanwhile I helped train these dogs and have taught them many things. On top of this they all listen and come to me without threatening them. The funniest part is my parents always say "Why do they follow you all the time?"
I almost wish I could play the curb your enthusiasm theme anytime they talk because they are absurdly out of touch with even a base line level of psychology.
Corporal punishment is banned in many countries, such as New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, Portugal, Ukraine, Israel, Denmark, Brazil, Kenya and Congo, amongst many others. These nations don't seem to have a particular discipline problem amongst their children, so I don't see why more countries wouldn't legislate against a behaviour that is clearly not better than other discipline techniques, and is also known to have plenty of negative effects.
What is everyone else waiting for? This research reported has been consistent for over two decades — nothing is going to change through waiting, except that more children are harmed by their carers' behaviour towards them.
I didn't know it was banned in Portugal but I would say this as a portuguese and having a school aged kid, parents hit their kids a lot here. Maybe not in the middle of Continente (walmart) but at home. Not beat them to death, but spanking their butts and the likes is quite common (and between parent talks, they are even sorta 'proud' of doing so)
As far as the US goes, I wouldn't doubt that it's intertwined with our religious history. "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Still getting our child-rearing advice from bronze age shepherds.
I've seen some liveleak videos that maybe could argue that Corporal punishment being illegal is either not enforced or definitely does not work for these countries.
> The most "consistent support," in 13 of 19 independent studies, was that spanking and other forms of child punishment created more external problem behaviors over time, Gershoff said, such as "increased aggression, increased antisocial behavior, and increased disruptive behavior in school."
> Some studies in the review found physical punishment increased conduct problems and signs of oppositional defiant disorder, which is characterized by temper tantrums, argumentative and defiant behavior, active defiance and refusal to follow rules, spitefulness and vindictiveness.
There is a difference between spanking and child abuse. The opposite of always trying to negotiate with the child also has it's drawbacks. It moves the parent from position of authority to position of a partner and forces him/her to negotiate over every little detail in life. Also, spanking is quite an efficient method if you get the "child laying down on the floor in the middle of a department store" problem. In this case negotiations won't give you anything, unless you promise your child to buy every single thing that grabbed his attention on the shelves.
> "child laying down on the floor in the middle of a department store"
In more than three decades of living in Norway where corporal punishment is exceedingly rare I have never once seen this kind of behaviour from a Norwegian child and rarely from immigrant children.
So perhaps one should look to the behaviour of the parents and society in general in order to tackle this kind of misbehaviour by ensuring that it does not happen instead of simply reacting to it when it does.
>So perhaps one should look to the behaviour of the parents and society in general in order to tackle this kind of misbehaviour by ensuring that it does not happen instead of simply reacting to it when it does.
Ok tell us how since you seem to be an expert on it. You can't "tackle" every situation with sweet words before it happens, especially when you're directing those words towards a being that doesn't have a full formed brain yet.
My general experience with Europeans is that it takes almost until middle age to leave the house, stop suckling their parents income, and act like adults where they can be responsible for themselves.
If that's what you want for your country fine but I think the hands off parenting and letting them get away with everything when they're young has consequences.
Anecdotally, my wife's German cousin came to visit quite often when he was little. His parents never disciplined him and took the Euro approach to essentially whining at him when he did something wrong. When he got upset he would just go around American Grandma's house knocking her stuff off the shelves and breaking it. Grandma had enough of that and gave him a nice swat eventually. He neever did it again. The kid is in his late 20s now, doesn't have a job, his parents are buying him an apartment, he has no clue what he wants to do, and has failed out of school multiple times. He also still acts like he's 15.
You could wait until your child is done lying on the floor, not buy them anything, and perhaps punish them in a civilized way later. Or carry them out of the store if you're in a hurry. Violence is always abuse and should not be tolerated.
I think for parents in a hurry an inconsolable child is challenging in a public setting. As you say carrying them off might be the best option at that point, if you have your hands free —which may not be the case.
The parent is the leader. Rarely negotiate with kids because it teaches them selfishness, arrogance, and narcissism.
There are plenty of unpleasant consequences that don't involve beatings. Kids need boundaries and to know they're going to be held accountable for their behavior.
I often hear these “negotiations” with children in public and they are laughable. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with a 2 year old is only a step up from trying to reason with my dog: they just don’t have the tools.
Children are constantly pushing and probing boundaries. They are trying to figure out who is in charge. So, when you respond to their aggression in a weak way because you’re worried about them not liking you, you lose. You aren’t teaching them to “be civilized”. Little by little their respect for you will diminish and you risk them becoming more unruly.
>Doing the same thing to an adult can get you an assault charge, or a punch in the face.
Kids aren't adults and they can't reason with logic or words. Therefore, if a child does something like bite, hit etc. (which they do often) an equal response teaches them immediately that committing those acts leads to a negative outcome. Of course, modern mentality is that this is an awful abusive way to treat your child. I disagree, I don't think a spank is akin to full on abuse and there are times when it's appropriate.
Additionally, adults that do act the way children do and start violently attacking people often get a quick response either from the individual they were attacking or the cops. Maybe they never learned consequences for their actions when they were young?
Have you ever been around a group of young men or boys when someone started something? Typically the quickest way to end it is a swift physical reaction that immediately shows you won't tolerate stuff.
> equal response teaches them immediately that committing those acts leads to a negative outcome.
I could say just as logically and with the same lack of evidence say that hitting kids to control them teaches them that violence is a good technique to get your way.
Maybe you’re talking about something else here, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with small amounts of physical correction. This can be absolutely necessary to change a manic child’s state before they learn emotional or impulse control.
Putting out cigarettes on a child or punching them? Yea, that is assault or worse.
>Doing the same thing to an adult can get you an assault charge, or a punch in the face.
Only people in a capacity of authority do the same thing to adults all the time when they're hard to control / reason with: imprison them, beat them and pin them down when they are unruly, restrain them, taze them, some countries have corporal punishment, and several other things besides.
What many modern parents did is exchange some slap and/or light hitting (which is not the same as abuse) with an arsenal of psychological manipulation, negotiation tactics, and guilt-inducing talk to get the kids to cooperate. Or, perhaps worse, giving up and letting kids having free-reign and ending up as horrible unsufferable me-me-me adults who think the world is there to serve them.
It’s also lack of education. I’ve travelled 3rd world countries and spanking is quite normalized, however, it appears that for parents it’s a normal reaction.
So this is a cultural thing and change follows education.
I want them to do this similar analysis on any shows of force, even not for particular anger filled situations.
For example, I have triplets, and sometimes the only way to accomplish what’s necessary at the local maximum of time and other infants benefit and parental benefit is to physically force a squirming baby into the diaper changing table. Is this along the same lines as spanking? Is there any mitigation of those behavior impacts by explaining why I’m physically forcing something?
As always with parenting, lots of questions and basically no answers.
With spanking you are trying to affect the thought processes that lead to bad behaviour (condition them) with violence. Implicitly showing the child it's ok to use violence to get what you want. Cue tantrums, destructive tendencies, etc.
In your case you are using force (which isn't the same as violence) to achieve something. Your showing the child some things must be done whether they like it or not.
I do believe you should always explain your actions in these kind of situations because children are rational but not nuanced. You have to be much more explicit with them so they learn to understand the implicit.
Yeah that makes sense. I always explain and try my best to give them some amount of time to agree to it without physical force. As they grow older, I expect this to become less necessary and for them to know that I have no actual _desire_ to hurt them at all.
Is there any mitigation of those behavior impacts by explaining why I’m physically forcing something?
I'd say the one big differentiator is pain. I'm assuming that you are using the minimal force necessary and doing your best to not intentionally cause pain.
Striking a child is done with the sole intention of causing pain.
Anecdotally, my aunt was a Section 8 Neanderthal single-mom. She beat my cousin with a wooden spoon. Combine that with no father figure, she ran away with an infamous biker gang before she was 17.
I am fairly hesitant to share this but if I do it I should be willing to talk about it.
I occasionally give my son a sharp tap on the side of the head. I have 3 kids and he is the only one I do this with. Words do not work with him, at least at this age.
This is very close to being illegal where I come from.
I'm careful to do this only when he's say, throwing things recklessly or otherwise engaging in behaviour with real risks to others.
It's not a "clip round the ears" and it's not meant to hurt. It's also not intended as "punishment".
What it is though is a reliable way to get his attention; being honest he just responds much more readily to this than words as a way to communicate "stop now".
Sample size n=1, all families, situations and children are different.
As I write this and think about it I realise there is probably a better way to do this, all suggestions appreciated.
EDIT: previously I found myself yelling, using "stern voice" or physically restraining him before I got to the point of thinking about a "physical signal".
I've done this too, and I have one of "those" hard-headed boys that loves to roughhouse, but I've come to believe there is no escape from "Where attention goes, behavior grows." You might be inflicting a punishment, but you are also granting him zealous attention, which is a drug worth some negative side-effects to their mind.
Withdrawing attention - say, to attend to the kid he's injured in another room - seems to change behavior much more effectively, exactly as the psychological literature predicts. Ignoring violent behavior is extremely difficult, but it can produce surprising results. It's taken a few months of this, but my hardheaded 3 year old has just started expressing sincere apologies.
I have never hit my kid (but my ex-wife has) as for whatever reason, he has an amount of respect for me that my body language alone is enough.
Here is the thing, you probably not doing something wrong. As long it isn't a everyday thing, it isn't so bad as people make it to be. The 'tap' to stop, then talking with him/her works, worked on me when I was a kid, probably the only thing that did to be honest. The 'physical violence' was the awakening call, then the conversation after that grounded it.
ps: if you just slap the living crap of him, say he is bad, and send him to his room without talking with him, then sure, that is an absolutely shitty behaviour, but I don't think this is what you are doing from your text.
People think I am crazy when I says this but I think generally physically "punishment" should mostly be reserved for toddlers and only when in situations where failure to learn the "lesson" could be very dangerous to the child. For example if you see a toddler sticking something in an electrical socket (a very common occurrence because they see adults do it) I think it is very appropriate to sharply smack the child's hand so it stings a bit. It is important for that child's safety to assocate sticking stuff into outlets with pain and there is no way you can explain the risks to a toddler. Once I child has the ability to speak and has basic reasoning I see very little if any use for physical "punishment"
I'm not going for aversion or punishment, it's more like... physical communication.
I think what is going on in my son's brain is that while I am trying to remain calm and tell him to stop flinging the door open and slamming it shut, oblivious to a nearby 1yo, is that what he actually hears is something like the charlie brown "wah wah wah" noise.
His hearing is fine but he can be very inattentive to speech.
I found myself needing a way to get through to him, with restraint and removal as escalation and a proper discussion when I actually have his attention.
I support anti smacking laws as doing more good than harm but I do feel conflicted about being a hypocrite. I'd like to be better.
Readit News
That was the moment I realized my parents were just abusive and thought they could alter behavior just by beating us. I hear it all the time with their dogs. If they do something they don't like, they don't take time to properly train them, it's straight to an angry tone and "I'm gonna get a stick." Meanwhile I helped train these dogs and have taught them many things. On top of this they all listen and come to me without threatening them. The funniest part is my parents always say "Why do they follow you all the time?"
I almost wish I could play the curb your enthusiasm theme anytime they talk because they are absurdly out of touch with even a base line level of psychology.
What is everyone else waiting for? This research reported has been consistent for over two decades — nothing is going to change through waiting, except that more children are harmed by their carers' behaviour towards them.
If anything I suspect that child behaviour will be better in such nations, it certainly is here in Norway.
I've seen some liveleak videos that maybe could argue that Corporal punishment being illegal is either not enforced or definitely does not work for these countries.
> Some studies in the review found physical punishment increased conduct problems and signs of oppositional defiant disorder, which is characterized by temper tantrums, argumentative and defiant behavior, active defiance and refusal to follow rules, spitefulness and vindictiveness.
But is that adaptive or not?
In more than three decades of living in Norway where corporal punishment is exceedingly rare I have never once seen this kind of behaviour from a Norwegian child and rarely from immigrant children.
So perhaps one should look to the behaviour of the parents and society in general in order to tackle this kind of misbehaviour by ensuring that it does not happen instead of simply reacting to it when it does.
Ok tell us how since you seem to be an expert on it. You can't "tackle" every situation with sweet words before it happens, especially when you're directing those words towards a being that doesn't have a full formed brain yet.
My general experience with Europeans is that it takes almost until middle age to leave the house, stop suckling their parents income, and act like adults where they can be responsible for themselves.
If that's what you want for your country fine but I think the hands off parenting and letting them get away with everything when they're young has consequences.
Anecdotally, my wife's German cousin came to visit quite often when he was little. His parents never disciplined him and took the Euro approach to essentially whining at him when he did something wrong. When he got upset he would just go around American Grandma's house knocking her stuff off the shelves and breaking it. Grandma had enough of that and gave him a nice swat eventually. He neever did it again. The kid is in his late 20s now, doesn't have a job, his parents are buying him an apartment, he has no clue what he wants to do, and has failed out of school multiple times. He also still acts like he's 15.
If your kid is a shit, and you bring them into my day and allow them to continue being a shit, well, you are a shit.
I think for parents in a hurry an inconsolable child is challenging in a public setting. As you say carrying them off might be the best option at that point, if you have your hands free —which may not be the case.
Children are constantly pushing and probing boundaries. They are trying to figure out who is in charge. So, when you respond to their aggression in a weak way because you’re worried about them not liking you, you lose. You aren’t teaching them to “be civilized”. Little by little their respect for you will diminish and you risk them becoming more unruly.
That's what parents say.
Parents hit their kids because they're angry with no impulse control, or assholes.
Doing the same thing to an adult can get you an assault charge, or a punch in the face.
I think the punishment for corporal punishment should be jail and corporal punishment.
Kids aren't adults and they can't reason with logic or words. Therefore, if a child does something like bite, hit etc. (which they do often) an equal response teaches them immediately that committing those acts leads to a negative outcome. Of course, modern mentality is that this is an awful abusive way to treat your child. I disagree, I don't think a spank is akin to full on abuse and there are times when it's appropriate.
Additionally, adults that do act the way children do and start violently attacking people often get a quick response either from the individual they were attacking or the cops. Maybe they never learned consequences for their actions when they were young?
Have you ever been around a group of young men or boys when someone started something? Typically the quickest way to end it is a swift physical reaction that immediately shows you won't tolerate stuff.
I could say just as logically and with the same lack of evidence say that hitting kids to control them teaches them that violence is a good technique to get your way.
Putting out cigarettes on a child or punching them? Yea, that is assault or worse.
Only people in a capacity of authority do the same thing to adults all the time when they're hard to control / reason with: imprison them, beat them and pin them down when they are unruly, restrain them, taze them, some countries have corporal punishment, and several other things besides.
What many modern parents did is exchange some slap and/or light hitting (which is not the same as abuse) with an arsenal of psychological manipulation, negotiation tactics, and guilt-inducing talk to get the kids to cooperate. Or, perhaps worse, giving up and letting kids having free-reign and ending up as horrible unsufferable me-me-me adults who think the world is there to serve them.
And let's look at the correlation: countries focused on rehabilitative justice e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway#Histor... tend to have the lowest recidivism.
Meanwhile countries focused on punitive justice (e.g. the US) have high incarceration rates and high recidivism.
It’s also lack of education. I’ve travelled 3rd world countries and spanking is quite normalized, however, it appears that for parents it’s a normal reaction.
So this is a cultural thing and change follows education.
Would that not entrench and perpetuate the harm that occurs with corporal punishment and in turn replicate the cycle of violence?
For example, I have triplets, and sometimes the only way to accomplish what’s necessary at the local maximum of time and other infants benefit and parental benefit is to physically force a squirming baby into the diaper changing table. Is this along the same lines as spanking? Is there any mitigation of those behavior impacts by explaining why I’m physically forcing something?
As always with parenting, lots of questions and basically no answers.
With spanking you are trying to affect the thought processes that lead to bad behaviour (condition them) with violence. Implicitly showing the child it's ok to use violence to get what you want. Cue tantrums, destructive tendencies, etc.
In your case you are using force (which isn't the same as violence) to achieve something. Your showing the child some things must be done whether they like it or not.
I do believe you should always explain your actions in these kind of situations because children are rational but not nuanced. You have to be much more explicit with them so they learn to understand the implicit.
I'd say the one big differentiator is pain. I'm assuming that you are using the minimal force necessary and doing your best to not intentionally cause pain.
Striking a child is done with the sole intention of causing pain.
Anecdotally, my aunt was a Section 8 Neanderthal single-mom. She beat my cousin with a wooden spoon. Combine that with no father figure, she ran away with an infamous biker gang before she was 17.
I occasionally give my son a sharp tap on the side of the head. I have 3 kids and he is the only one I do this with. Words do not work with him, at least at this age.
This is very close to being illegal where I come from.
I'm careful to do this only when he's say, throwing things recklessly or otherwise engaging in behaviour with real risks to others.
It's not a "clip round the ears" and it's not meant to hurt. It's also not intended as "punishment".
What it is though is a reliable way to get his attention; being honest he just responds much more readily to this than words as a way to communicate "stop now".
Sample size n=1, all families, situations and children are different.
As I write this and think about it I realise there is probably a better way to do this, all suggestions appreciated.
EDIT: previously I found myself yelling, using "stern voice" or physically restraining him before I got to the point of thinking about a "physical signal".
Withdrawing attention - say, to attend to the kid he's injured in another room - seems to change behavior much more effectively, exactly as the psychological literature predicts. Ignoring violent behavior is extremely difficult, but it can produce surprising results. It's taken a few months of this, but my hardheaded 3 year old has just started expressing sincere apologies.
What do you do when you need the behaviour to stop e.g. for safety reasons?
Here is the thing, you probably not doing something wrong. As long it isn't a everyday thing, it isn't so bad as people make it to be. The 'tap' to stop, then talking with him/her works, worked on me when I was a kid, probably the only thing that did to be honest. The 'physical violence' was the awakening call, then the conversation after that grounded it.
ps: if you just slap the living crap of him, say he is bad, and send him to his room without talking with him, then sure, that is an absolutely shitty behaviour, but I don't think this is what you are doing from your text.
I think what is going on in my son's brain is that while I am trying to remain calm and tell him to stop flinging the door open and slamming it shut, oblivious to a nearby 1yo, is that what he actually hears is something like the charlie brown "wah wah wah" noise.
His hearing is fine but he can be very inattentive to speech.
I found myself needing a way to get through to him, with restraint and removal as escalation and a proper discussion when I actually have his attention.
I support anti smacking laws as doing more good than harm but I do feel conflicted about being a hypocrite. I'd like to be better.
Perhaps there's a reason if people do not agree with you.
> I think it is very appropriate
Pedagogical and psychological practitioners don't think so. What are your credentials?