Same here, and I'm sorry that some of the commenters immediately play the "child abuse" card. Teaching your kid that there are boundaries is a good thing, or you will end up with, well, the current generation of teenagers and college-aged kids in the US, who have a whole arsenal of excuses why there aren't doing what they should be doing, a sense of entitlement the size of Montana, and zero sense of responsibility.
Beating their ass when they deserve it should be a last resort -- a clear signal that they have gone too far this time. And the fewer of those you have to hand out, the better. If your kid actually listens to reason all the time, great! But for most of them, sometimes this is necessary, and assuming your kid has a normal response to stimuli, it should work a hell of a lot better than a "timeout" (how is that a punishment anyway?).
Timeouts aren't about punishment (at least, not the way they were used in my house). I think it's difficult for people who were raised that way to see the discipline side of parenting as anything other than coercing your child to behave, but it isn't always necessary. For my parents, it was about teaching.
When I had tantrums, my parents sent me to my room. Not because having a tantrum is wrong and I needed to be punished, but because I wasn't in control of myself and needed to let my anger play out without bothering anyone. And you know what? They stopped. They got boring. They taught me that I couldn't get what I wanted that way. (Some parents give in and teach children that tantrums are an appropriate way to get what you want. I don't advocate for this at all.)
Misbehavior was "punished" by the natural consequence of the action. Being rude in a social situation = being removed from it. This how they taught me that you follow society's rules or you don't get to appreciate it. (Intentionally) breaking my stuff = losing it. I don't break things.
The spoiled kids aren't necessarily the ones whose parents never coerced them to behave; the spoiled kids are the ones whose parents hid them from the real consequences of their actions.
Saying "Mommy doesn't like it when you do that" and then driving them to the Zoo anyways is completely different from "Mommy doesn't like it when you do that and I've asked you to stop three times. I don't want to take you to the Zoo anymore; we're going home." The latter option sends the message without also making you an enemy worth rebelling against. Spanking does.
"Teaching" someone that bad behavior leads to a spanking doesn't make them understand why it's bad. It's not true of everyone, but some children (myself included) would not think "when I do this, there is pain, so I shouldn't do this.", as with touching a hot stove or an electrical outlet. They would think "when I do this, my parents hit me, and because they hit me, I don't like them, so let's think of some good ways to make them angry... hmm..." and so the arms race begins.
A "timeout" (or as my mother would call it "GO TO YOUR ROOM RIGHT NOW!") works as punishment for mysterious reasons. You'd think that the kid would be happy alone in his room with all those toys, but seeing an angry parent and then being left alone to think for a while seems to be reasonably painful.
I don't think the name "timeout" is good, though. It makes it sound too much like part of a game.
I agree, though, that the "timeout" shouldn't be the worst threat in a parent's disciplinary arsenal. Spankings should be given out rarely and threatened far more often.
I would never spank my own children, but that's a parenting choice. This societal moralizing about every single aspect of how one should raise their children is a big part of the problem described in the article.
For the record, spanking is not necessarily abuse. For you to cite unequivocably that it is is pure unthinking political correctness. Parenting is complicated, psychology is complicated. Is everyone who was born before 1950 irretrievably fucked up? How many of them got spankings?
> This societal moralizing about every single aspect of how one should raise their children is a big part of the problem described in the article.
Well, you are trying to add unearned emphasis with "every single aspect". It's not about "every single aspect", although it is moralizing about compulsion and pain.
> For the record, spanking is not necessarily abuse.
depends of the definition.
> For you to cite unequivocably that it is is pure unthinking political correctness.
You don't know how much though I have put into the subject and calling it political correctness is incorrect unless careing about whether or not people use pain and fear to shape children is just political correctness.
> Parenting is complicated, psychology is complicated
...
> Is everyone who was born before 1950 irretrievably fucked up?
I don't know if "irretrievably", but I think almost everyone is psychologically damaged in some way or another.
Well, you are trying to add unearned emphasis with
No, it's fully earned. I am a parent. I have witnessed first hand the moralizing, judgement and mutually contradictory universal expectations that random people have about how childrearing should be done.
You don't know how much though I have put into the subject and calling it political correctness is incorrect...
Fair enough, you may have put substantial thought into how parenting should work from a theoretical perspective.
...unless careing about whether or not people use pain and fear to shape children is just political correctness
Reframing the debate in terms so negative that anyone would appear insane to disagree with them is classic political correctness.
I don't know if "irretrievably", but I think almost everyone is psychologically damaged in some way or another.
Which raises the question, is your duty as a parent to prevent any and all psychological damage to your child?
If the goal is to minimize suffering, then is it better to indulge your child and raise an entitled spoiled individual that will never be satisfied for the rest of their life. Or is it better to "use fear" (the fear of consequences, whatever they may be) to raise a child that has some notion of negative cause and effect?
Hello. I am a parent. I am quite familiar with how schizophrenic you will quickly become if you try to do what everyone else tells you to do. I have put considerable thought into corporal punishment. And in my case the thought is both theoretical and practical.
While I grant that there are lots of people who are against corporal punishment as a matter of political correctness, there are also very good reasons not to use corporal punishment that have absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.
The first, and simplest, is that children model their behavior on ours. If you hit your kid, your kid will try hitting other kids. And, according to statistics, they are also more likely to hit other people in their lives, including spouses and their own kids. If you don't want to encourage that behavior, you need to not model it.
The second is that children who experience corporal punishment become more focused on avoiding the punishment than on internalizing the lesson they were supposed to learn. The classic example is the kid running out on a street looking around to be sure that mom isn't watching, and not looking for the car that is coming. Other forms of discipline have much less of this problem.
Corporal punishment also toughens the child's response to punishment. This makes them much less likely to respect alternate forms of punishment. Which makes them less likely to respect attempts at discipline in other child care settings, such as detentions at school.
Now you can try to solve problem 3 by supplementing others' punishment with your own corporal punishment. But only at the cost of worsening problems 1 and 2.
All of this wouldn't matter much if it weren't for the fact that other forms of discipline have been observed to be just as effective in altering children's behavior, and do not have the same drawbacks. Luckily those forms of discipline (and in many cases alternatives to discipline!) exist. And therefore there is no good reason to use corporal punishment.
If you hit your kid, your kid will try hitting other kids. And, according to statistics, they are also more likely to hit other people in their lives, including spouses and their own kids.
Your kid will almost certainly hit other kids no matter what you do. (At least if your kid is a boy, I'm not so sure about girls.) Of course you should punish it when it happens, but you shouldn't be surprised, and you certainly shouldn't despair that now your kid is going to grow up to be a wife-beater.
Which makes them less likely to respect attempts at discipline in other child care settings, such as detentions at school.
As it turns out, by the time I went to school I was well-behaved enough that I never got detention. I can't give all the credit to corporal punishment for that one... or can I?
And therefore there is no good reason to use corporal punishment.
Out of curiosity, what punishments do you give to your kids? Do you have a "reserve" punishment saved up that you've never had to use? One so powerful that the mere threat is enough to get 'em to behave?
Your kid will almost certainly hit other kids no matter what you do. (At least if your kid is a boy, I'm not so sure about girls.) Of course you should punish it when it happens, but you shouldn't be surprised, and you certainly shouldn't despair that now your kid is going to grow up to be a wife-beater.
I am aware of that, and don't despair. But I'm still going to make common sense steps that reduce the odds of that.
As it turns out, by the time I went to school I was well-behaved enough that I never got detention. I can't give all the credit to corporal punishment for that one... or can I?
According to the statistics, you cannot give credit to corporal punishment for that. There is a great deal of variability in kids, but _on average_ corporal punishment doesn't result in better behavior. (No matter how many people personally believe otherwise for themselves.)
Out of curiosity, what punishments do you give to your kids?
Diversion. Talking to. Counting. Time outs.
Do you have a "reserve" punishment saved up that you've never had to use?
> No, it's fully earned. I am a parent. I have witnessed first hand the moralizing, judgement and mutually contradictory universal expectations that random people have about how childrearing should be done.
I don't doubt you are an intelligent person, but it's not showing. I hope you consider it as a possible description and not an insult.
Let's go by parts:
> No, it's fully earned
it is objectively unearned. To earn the complaint of "moralizing about every single aspect" I need first to moralize about every single aspect. I moralized about one aspect.
> I have witnessed first hand the moralizing, judgement and mutually contradictory universal expectations that random people have about how childrearing should be done.
From me? please justify.
> Reframing the debate in terms so negative that anyone would appear insane to disagree with them is classic political correctness.
Please justify how is it that hitting causing pain is not using hitting and pain to shape children.
> Which raises the question, is your duty as a parent to prevent any and all psychological damage to your child?
you changed the subject from causing pain as a value in parenting to preventing psychological damage.
> If the goal is to minimize suffering, then is it better to indulge your child and raise an entitled spoiled individual that will never be satisfied for the rest of their life.
What? you are so far from being able to think about this subject.
> Or is it better to "use fear" (the fear of consequences, whatever they may be) to raise a child that has some notion of negative cause and effect?
I'm done. You could tell yourself I'm quitting because I don't have an answer. I just realize this subject turns brains off for very good reasons.
This "cause and effect" argument strikes me as incredibly shallow thinking. Do you seriously believe that the only way people learn cause and effect is from spankings? Appealing to cause and effect is extremely misleading because a punishment is not a natural effect of the cause of misbehavior. This is true almost by definition - you have to create a punishment because there is no natural negative consequences to whatever they did. That's why no-one punishes kids for falling and skinning their knee - the effect proceeds naturally from the cause. So the punishment is by definition an artificial manufacturing of a negative consequence to enforce the behavior of the parent's choosing -- not only is this objectively true, every child knows this. If you ask a kid why they get punished, how many would say "That's the way the universe works, it's like gravity."? None. They all realize that it's the parent's decision and choice, and are well-aware that other parent's make different decisions.
The reason this is important is that attempting to elide the parent's choice in how and when to punish is an attempt to avoid responsibility for being an authority, with all the questions of legitimacy, responsibility, transparency, appropriateness & fairness that that entails. Saying your actions are natural consequences like gravity means you are making yourself into a tyrant who cannot be questioned. This failure to accept the responsibility of being an authority is also a mark of the permissive parent, who refuses to set any limits at all. Even though they seem like opposites, they have something in common.
Think about spanking like this: would you beat up your colleague at work because he won't implement your specifications properly? If no, why not? If yes, would he be more likely to implement your specifications properly after you have beat him up?
Would a kid be more likely to understand your arguments than your colleague? If no, why would he be more likely to respond to spanking?
Ultimately, how can it really be justified to spank a kid???
My mother stopped using corporal punishment on us when my older brother (at 3 years old) explained that he was justified in hitting me, because hurting people was okay if they were smaller than you. He was practicing.
Children, even from when they're very little, know the difference between hurting themselves on something hot and you, their parent, intentionally causing them pain. Even if your punishments are consistent, there's no chance they will mistake you for a force of nature.
I imagine that some corporal punishment is better for a kid than letting them run wild, but that's a straw man; simply teaching them non-violently (i.e., through example) how to interact with others has a better result overall than using pain to control them. This makes sense intuitively and is well-supported by research.
All discipline is painful. Whether it's physical pain or emotional pain. I believe, based on purely anecdotal evidence, that physical pain is less harmful to a child's emotional well being.
Corporal punishment, if administered properly, is over in an instant, and once the child has been made to understand that what they did is not acceptable (and optionally why, depending on the child's age) then reconciliation between the child and the parent can take place.
Also, keep in mind that different types of discipline are appropriate for different children. I don't think it makes sense to spank a two year old, because they probably wouldn't remember why they were being spanked, but a light slap on the hand when they go to grab that priceless vase is pretty effective. I also don't spank my teen-aged son, but he has had to do his fair share of push-ups while listening to me explain to him the error of his ways.
Now, you may be one of those parents who don't discipline your child at all. More power to you, but bear in mind that if you do not discipline your child and teach them proper from improper behavior, then society WILL do it for you. And the methods society uses are probably going to be much more painful.
> I also don't spank my teen-aged son, but he has had to do his fair share of push-ups while listening to me explain to him the error of his ways.
He doesn't have to. It's not an requirement of life that he does. He's just submissive towards you.
I don't see why should it be a requirement. If he does, then why are they still a requirement? If he doesn't, why is it a good thing for him to comply? Why is he afraid? why is he submissive?
I understand you are not going to accept reality here. I know you have rationalizations to justify causing fear and pain in your "parenting". I understand it seem reasonable to you and that's not going to change. I quit.
