Thread: Kind Words vs Strap : Why Must We Have These Extremes?

Sorry for picking on Capulet, not derailing thread this was in.

Originally Posted by Capulet

As for kind words vs. the strap: we have decades of data on the direction kind words are taking us, culminating in the problems we face now. I'm all for reverting to corporal punishment again.

Why must we have either the softly softly can't have punishment or wack wack wack with the cane?

Seriously, are we so barbaric in the head that we're only permitted these two options. I for one am sick of being told that I must support thuggish teachers smashing children's fingers (which was what occurred) else I'm a supporter of breeding juvenile criminals. Where's the idea of having discipline without the need to hit a child?

Have a close look at many of the teachers, can the actually trust them with any weapon? I certainly can't. I don't understand why we can't make unruly students do schoolwork in front of the principle's office, make parents attend school, and various other disciplinary measures. And I don't know why we aren't asking ourselves why some teachers are capable of having well behaved students, whilst others are incapable of it.

Kind words vs strap, I simply don't understand why we must choose one of the other. Maybe somebody can explain.

You've complained about those two options without suggesting anything else yourself. What are your options?

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

I'll repeat what I said to Capulet in the other thread:

When it comes to parenting and what goes on in the schools -- what you're talking about is the result of permissiveness -- and a lack of consequences that result from negative behavior. Corporal punishment isn't necessary -- just consistent and thoughtful discipline. All hitting teaches is that it's a good idea to hit people when things aren't going your way.

If there was less permissiveness at home and if parents wouldn't side against the teachers so often, lack of discipline at school wouldn't be such a problem. I've told this story many times, but it illustrates a point. When my wife was teaching preschool, a kid bit her arm. When she told the parent, the parent said, "Well, what did you do to make him bite you?" Seriously.

I see parents who issue constant threats and never follow through. And then there are those who try to bargain. It never works. But you don't have to hit either. Take "time out" for example. It can be very effective -- but here's the kicker -- you actually have to put the kid in time out -- you can't just say you're going to do it.

I agree with some of that, Joe, but the idea that spanking teaches kids to hit I don't agree with. Handled properly a spanking is simply a way to teach that the parent, not the child, is the authority. Corporal punishment (administered wisely) is not a temper tantrum, it's an illustrative instruction that teaches respect. Later down the road the child who respects authority respects police with weapons and hand cuffs...so that the police do not have to use them.

Kindness an extreme? That statement in itself might be extreme.


Marvin, what's going on?

Originally Posted by Foxee

I agree with some of that, Joe, but the idea that spanking teaches kids to hit I don't agree with.

You're right in most cases. I’m not one of these people who goes nuts about spanking. The people who go overboard – well, you’re likely not going to reach them with a message that there are good or better alternatives -- but still, I think it’s best not to promote it. That’s just my opinion. I can count on my thumbs the times we’ve done it – once when one of ours broke free and ran into the street – she was almost three, my wife thought the extra on-the-spot whack was necessary to make an impact. Otherwise, I just don’t think you need to do it. Time out and or other ways of taking away privileges has worked for us. I think respect and making it clear who’s in charge comes from consistency -- and not trying to be best friends or bargaining or bribing, like so many parents do.

More than once, we’ve had people say, your kids are so polite and it’s a pleasure to have them around – and in practically the same breath say, geez, you guys are kind of hard on them. It just doesn’t seem to compute. Of course, they may end up in jail or on a street corner or whatever. Not tooting my horn too loud -- but so far so good.

Originally Posted by Foxee

You've complained about those two options without suggesting anything else yourself. What are your options?

It's not the job of a thread creator of a discussion thread to dictate on the first post.

Originally Posted by Foxee

I agree with some of that, Joe, but the idea that spanking teaches kids to hit I don't agree with. Handled properly a spanking is simply a way to teach that the parent, not the child, is the authority.

With the exception of hitting a child's hand away from a flame (or similar emergency), I can see no situation where hitting is required to establish 'authority'.
In fact, I've never seen an in control parent hit a child. The only occasions where I've ever seen 'spanking', it's because the parent is lashing out. You can't convince me that parents waiting until they lose it and going wack wack wack wack wack wack wack wack wack, is the way to keep a child well behaved. I'd would however love to wack a few parents, but that would be assault.

Specifically with teaching, I remember that those teachers with the most well behaved classrooms were never aggressive. I'd gone to a school where they dumped bad teachers. But one teacher I had made it his rule that all assignments received marks, and not getting enough was a fail; even if it resulted in everybody failing. After a reminder partway in, about half the class paid attention; the other half failed. There were a few decent teachers, but their work were sabotaged by clueless & incompetent teachers.
One time, I got a permanent ban from a class literally for defending myself against two others. The planned actions by the aggressors was known, but according to the disciplinary co-ordinator, I was supposed to allowed them to do it and then reported it afterwards. One of the aggressors got zero penalty, the other a 1 class penalty. Corporal punishment had been stopped by then, but can you imagine what would have happened if it was allowed? You simply can't trust many teachers with any form in physical discipline.

Corporal punishment is a cop out by those who chose not to do their jobs properly, whether that be teachers or parents.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Corporal punishment is a cop out by those who chose not to do their jobs properly, whether that be teachers or parents.

That's a huge generalization. Like I said, I'm not a proponent of spanking, but I've seen cases where it's effective if the parent uses it as just another arrow in the quiver. Some kids respond to it, others don't. My mom had six kids to deal with, and she occasionally spanked us and I think it made an impact -- and she was a pretty calm person who didn't act from anger. It was just her way. None of us are criminals or serial killers or child abusers. We're all relatively well adjusted and raising our own families as we see fit. So it all depends.

I think everyone needs to watch a season of the dog whisperer, then come back with some new ideas on how corporal punishment can be used to properly discipline and guide a child.

The problem with this debate is that it lends itself to trotting out the extreme examples on either side. The truth, as with most things, likely stands in the middle.

Any parent that wants to discipline their child must first discipline themselves. If you're one of those "do no harm, say only positive things" kind of parents, how much harder must it be to control your tongue than your hand? To think any parent that's committed to maintaining a level, calm disposition when dealing with a child couldn't also maintain physical control as well seems outlandish to me.

I'd be far more likely to call him a little bastard than hit the little bastard.

There is room in parenting for swats on the behind, picking up by the belt and carrying out of the store (why else have belts on kids' clothing?), and a myriad of other physical interventions that gets the child's attention and applies the pain/pleasure principle to their thinking and decisions.

If you're operating with a pleasure/bigger pleasure principle you aren't going to get far. If the baseline is good, behaving is great, but indulging your selfish wants and whims is good+indulgence, you're going to see a lot of children indulging. Appeals to reason aren't so effective with unfinished minds.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

The problem with this debate is that it lends itself to trotting out the extreme examples on either side. The truth, as with most things, likely stands in the middle.

Maybe in general. There were only three people talking about this -- and only one of them seemed to be talking extremes.

I would still contend you can discipline a child with without ever spanking or hitting -- if you're consistent and you arrive at punishments that have an effect. In which case, the thinking, non-physical way of handling things is preferable. To me, spanking would be last resort.

The thing is, when you have kids, you can do it any way you want. We're not spanking and it's all going pretty well. And that opinion comes from experience -- not guesswork.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I think everyone needs to watch a season of the dog whisperer, then come back with some new ideas on how corporal punishment can be used to properly discipline and guide a child.

.

Although I was sent to the store by my parents on many occasions, I was never told to fetch a stick.



But, to some degree, you are correct. In nearly all cases (except for rare children), a child, by nature, will see how much he or she can get away with. The child begins testing the parent, taking one inch, then two, and then three until it is convinced it can do whatever it wants without facing consequences.

A good smack across the back of the head when the child is testing is always a good method to getting that child back in line. If a child isn't taught right from wrong, it is in step to becoming a brat or, even worse, a monster.

I've watched my wife's sister raise her children with "time-outs." And, now the kids are in their teens and are a handful of trouble.
My neice has three boys who are six, seven, and eight-years-old. The youngest one is rougher than the two others and is always hitting them. My neice disciplines the little one with "time-outs." My brother, who is the boys' grandfather, tells the two older boys to hit the little one back so that he stops bothering them. I think the method of self-defense is much more effective than "time-outs."


When a parent slaps a boy, the parent isn't a bad person (or isn't doing it because it wants to hurt the boy), the parent takes action to eliminate his bad behavior. Thus, when the boy becomes a man, he will look back at those slaps in appreciation, knowing that they helped shape his life for the better.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

I've watched my wife's sister raise her children with "time-outs." And, now the kids are in their teens and are a handful of trouble.

I'd put money on it they didn't follow through, make it miserable enough or it didn't cause them to miss out on something. Or they didn't time it. We did all that, and it's worked like a charm. There's no mistaking in our house who's boss -- and my kids will snap to it often with just a look from my wife or me -- all with no hitting across the back of the head. Go figure.

Originally Posted by JosephB

There's no mistaking in our house who's boss -- and my kids will snap to it often with just a look from my wife or me -- all with no hitting across the back of the head. Go figure.

There's no mistaking who's boss in this family either:

Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal - Montreal - CBC News

Originally Posted by JosephB

I'd put money on it they didn't follow through, make it miserable enough or it didn't cause them to miss out on something. Or they didn't time it. We did all that, and it's worked like a charm. There's no mistaking in our house who's boss -- and my kids will snap to it often with just a look from my wife or me -- all with no hitting across the back of the head. Go figure.

You must have extraordinary children.

When I was young, I believe "time-outs" didn't exist. When I did something wrong in the apartment and my dad was home, I'd race to the nearest window, leap out onto the fire escape, and dash down three flights of metal steps for the safety of the yard. I'd stay in the street for a few hours and return when my father had cooled off. One good thing about him was that he never held grudges. If he didn't get his hands on me when I was caught acting stupid, he just let it go.

My father always gave me a long leash (arf! Dogs again). And he never forced me to do anything I didn't want to--no school and no church. Although he wouldn't hesitate to fight three men at the same time (if he had to), he would always ask me politely when he sent me to the store for him.

When he asked me to do something, he was never without the words "do me a favor" or "could you please go get me." Although he made seven of us, he never smothered anybody. We were allowed to roam freely, but knowing that he was there if we did something wrong. None of us got into deep trouble. It was a good arrangement.



I will say this though: he only put his hands on us when we deserved it. That's why in a way, I'm glad he isn't around today. I could visualize him slapping me in the street (naturally I would have deserved it) and a police officer witnessing it and trying to handcuff my dad.
Definitely, one of them would have been seriously injured or dead.


Nowadays, things are a bit upside-down.

Originally Posted by Capulet

There's no mistaking who's boss in this family either:

Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal - Montreal - CBC News

And what does some idiotic legal battle prove other than there’s something seriously wrong with a system or court or judge that wouldn’t immediately throw something like this out? Are you saying it all never would have happened if the father had spanked his kid, or if all parents spanked their kids? Come on. Maintaining discipline can be done without spanking or hitting -- if you know what you're doing. This suit or whatever it is, is about messed up priorities and permissiveness gone out of control, it doesn't say anything about the value of corporal punishment.