Does Spanking kids Work?

[Montrovant]

I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are whipped.

...that bolded word.

I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.

What happens when the child will not listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?

My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?

Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.

children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.

whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............

why?

Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

 

[Bumberclyde]

And I need to say that I have no problem with any of you guys who disagree with me on this. I have absolutely no doubt you all love your children, or will love them when you have them. We just disagree a bit on how to go about disciplining the little ones. If I could I'd invite all you guys here out for a beer.

So your excuse for hitting your kids is that you were drunk?

 

[G.T.]

...that bolded word.

I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.

What happens when the child will not listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?

My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?

Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.

children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.

whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............

why?

Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

 

[GISMYS]

YES!!! "SPANK" A SMALL CHILD IF YOU LOVE HIM. If you don't you may get to visit them in jail or see them in a hospital for drinking,drugs or in the morgue. YOUR CHOICE!

 

[chikenwing]

That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.

children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.

whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............

why?

Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

 

[G.T.]

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

Of course not all ages of children can understand everything. Thinking anyone need to reprimand that comment of mine is just churlish.

Yes, I have a child. If I didn't, nothing has changed in my view of spanking.

 

[Asclepias]

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging. Remember its a battle of wills. They want the cookie and damn everything else. You are not going to give it to them no matter what. You are playing chicken and your child should never be able to outlast you.

 

[chikenwing]

youd be wrong in that impression

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.

You don't have children do you?

 

[G.T.]

youd be wrong in that impression

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.

I wasn't going to say anything, but my 2 year old most certainly reasons and understands but to each his or her own children.

Of course, she misbehaves also. But she's been taught enough to where she feels guilt immediately after and becomes sad about having been bold. No spanking necessary.

 

[Asclepias]

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.

You don't have children do you?

I have 4

 

[Asclepias]

you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.

LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.

I wasn't going to say anything, but my 2 year old most certainly reasons and understands but to each his or her own children.

Of course, she misbehaves also. But she's been taught enough to where she feels guilt immediately after and becomes sad about having been bold. No spanking necessary.

Kids are going to misbehave or they wouldnt be kids. They would be miniature adults. The fact your child feels guilt proves she has enough capability to understand she going against the standards set for the family.

 

[Montrovant]

That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.

children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.

whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............

why?

Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

You certainly seem comfortable speaking for others.

 

[G.T.]

Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults. Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections. They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night. The little one I nanny was getting into bed. She picked a story to have read and got under the covers. She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose. She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening. So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one. Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point. I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished. She cried for at least 5 minutes about it. Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway? Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification. Small children are mostly about right now. It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity. If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them? I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks. Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred. Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works. It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children do not think like adults. Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true. I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.

youd be wrong in that impression

You certainly seem comfortable speaking for others.

yap yap yap

ya quoted my post bretheren

 

[oldfart]

I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.

Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.

I recognize your point and I agree. But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children. I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families. You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided. Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues: Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other? Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?

My answer to the first is no. While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education. We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).

My answer to the second is yes, and we should try. Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended. Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.

 

[G.T.]

I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.

Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.

I recognize your point and I agree. But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children. I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families. You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided. Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues: Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other? Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?

My answer to the first is no. While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education. We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).

My answer to the second is yes, and we should try. Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended. Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.

It's not the greatest excuse in the world, not being a behavior specialist.

Your(universal your) kid is supposed to be the most important thing in the world, you'd think people could hop on google these days and learn some tricks tips and techniques before they are at the "all else is lost therefore physical punishment stage."

It's eye opening how many non violent behavioral techniques exist -

 

[Asclepias]

I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.

Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.

I recognize your point and I agree. But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children. I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families. You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided. Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues: Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other? Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?

My answer to the first is no. While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education. We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).

My answer to the second is yes, and we should try. Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended. Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.

It's not the greatest excuse in the world, not being a behavior specialist.

Your(universal your) kid is supposed to be the most important thing in the world, you'd think people could hop on google these days and learn some tricks tips and techniques before they are at the "all else is lost therefore physical punishment stage."

It's eye opening how many non violent behavioral techniques exist -

Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior. Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?

 

[oldfart]

...that bolded word.

I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.

What happens when the child will not listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?

My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?

Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

At that point its a battle of wills. Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer. My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.

OK, here is my experience. All children at some point during ages 2--4 will test parents with a temper tantrum. If a child never does this, check for a pulse. It almost always happens at the most inopportune time for the parent, in a store or other public place. The parent is likely to be a bit frazzled and the willfulness of the misbehavior pushes all of the parent's buttons. Sound familiar?

Giving the child what they want is a mistake. It reinforces the bad behavior, making worse the next time and there definitely will be a next time (usually before you can get them home again!). This is the poster child situation for thinking through and having your response ready as a parent; it's not a question of if but of when.

The child will usually appear tired and cranky because they are. The first thing is to know your exit strategy. You don't want to fight this fight in public, so if you have plans or commitments, it helps if you can abort them and get the kid home. If not, at least get them to a less public space as quickly as you can. Note how much the child's behavior depends on the audience (for younger children it doesn't make a difference, for older toddlers it does).

It takes about 20 seconds for most small children to go from expectation of getting what they want to full blown anger over not getting it. At this point the anger is the key. The anger triggers an adrenaline rush which has several physiological effects (not the same thing is happening to you as the parent!). Cognitive function shuts down when adrenaline hits the bloodstream, the face flushes and feels warm, and emotional responses are intensified (anger turns to rage, disappointment to abandonment, etc). Histrionic behavior is inevitable.

This is the point where many parents begin to play "escalato". Willfulness triggers punishment which generates more stubborn willfulness. This transactional "game" continues until one or both parties exhibit a total emotional collapse. In the famous words of the classic movie "War Games", "A most peculiar game. The only way to win is to not play."

So the optimal strategy is to wait out the adrenaline rush. For small children this usually takes only a few minutes, but with an older child who believes they can outlast the parent, it can be epic, the three or four hours mentioned. The two components of the parental strategy are isolation (there is no audience and nothing, good or bad, happens until the child is ready to communicate without demands) and patience. There really is no substitute for waiting the required time. I always reminded the child that when they were ready, we would talk about what they wanted. The inevitable reply was always some variation of "Do I get X then?" to which the response was always "No, but we will talk about how you get what you want." Usually the next gambit is "But I want it now!" to which the counter is "I am not going to give X to you now, but we can talk about how you can get X [or how you can get Y instead of X]". By now you get the drill. Never get pinned down on a specific time frame.

My point is that this will be inconvenient for the parent and the psychological pressure to find a shortcut will be massive. Take a deep breath and reconcile yourself that it will take what time it will take and the best way to speed it up is to act like you have all the time in the world.

It don't claim it's easy, but it works for most people who give it a fair try.

 

[gnarlylove]

...that bolded word.

I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.

What happens when the child will not listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?

My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?

Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

I do see the difference between hitting and polite and firm rapping but they both involve violence. Violence is an act of aggression, and as long as the rapping is construed as punishment it is an act against the child involving intentional pain.

The way to assert dominance is by showing how you have the power to exclude the child from eating, playing with a certain toy, etc. That if they don't listen to you, they must fend for themselves which they obviously cannot do so they must listen if they wish to have basic privileges. Of course in doing so you better be sure they can learn something instead a simple reacting out of being upset and being impatient. Modern society often leaves us much less time to rear a child in a proper context.

CNA is a tough job and requires you to work when you don't expect to, so not having that time to instill corrective values must be replaced with firm hands placed on the bottom. Both are roughly effective but given time constraints one must choose the latter more often than not. This is a fault of society for demanding survival come at the cost of spending time with our child etc.

In an ideal world, any type of hand contact except to express love would not exist. Violence does not exist in a free world as violence is often the expression of removing freedom from another person or instilling fear. These are not healthy coping mechanisms or expressions to be taught ever, especially at 3-15 during development. But personally I don't have a child, I've spent my adult life taking care of adults and teens; no act of aggression on my part was warranted or ultimately effective. Although it may be effective for children, it's a black and blue mark upon a child's psyche.

 

[XPostFacto]

It's good for them. It builds character. Besides, it is condoned in the Bible.

 

[gnarlylove]

Being condoned in the bible is one thing--which I respect--but its an entirely different matter for modern science to say this harms the psyche of a child.