Ok, what is Gentle Discipline or other forms??? - Page 2

sallybutton · #21 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 07:08 AM

How do I know what? That spankings didn't cause my son to make the choices he made. Because he has sociopathic tendancies, which is a genetic thing....he is JUST like his biological dad. I've asked the question of whether or not how you discipline your child effects the outcome of this and the answer was no. So see, you know NOTHING as I have stated several times now

I don't think there has been a clear distinction between nurture vs. nature and sociopathic tendencies. So, your lack of comfort and hitting could have contributed to the situation. It certainally didn't make it any better.

Is this a serious question or are you just being a b*tch again with implying things you don't know anything about????

Are you able to have a conversation without name calling? But, I suppose, if that's all you've got.......

I spoke too soon, it's just you being a b*tch. I have stated I no longer believe spanking is biblical.(obviously you missed me saying that in my previous post) What you don't seem to understand is, spanking is NOT illegal. Abuse IS illegal. Why? Because there is a difference between discipline and abuse.

Quote:
Pretty sick. It figures you like and voted for Bush.

While I did vote for the SOB, and did like him, that is no longer the case.

I apologize that statement was directed at the other poster who mentioned the bible and hitting children.

I believe in spanking; open palm, no object, clothed bottom. And believe it should be used only in certain situations and never out of anger-

Regardless of how you want to label it, its HITTING your children. And, its abusive. There are many other ways to deal with children in a gentle manor.
Let me guess, another bible thumper? Bush fan?

momof4boys · #22 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 07:48 AM

So, your lack of comfort and hitting could have contributed to the situation. It certainally didn't make it any better.

Will you PLEASE STOP implying things that you have NO idea what you are talking about. Do you realize that I was actually more AP with my oldest son when he was a baby. I actually rarely spanked him, I picked him up every time he cried, I carried him around with me a LOT, yes I did occassionally spank him, but IMO, not nearly enough. He spent a LOT of time with my mom and she gave him EVERYTHING he wanted. She NEVER said NO to him. Spanking him had nothing to do with something that may have been genetically passed to him from his dad. But, I'm sure you won't agree with the experts that told me that, since its obvious you know more that the college educated people.

You haven't answered my question. Let me put it another way since you are all expert like. You say spanking is what caused my son's issue of breaking the law. So please explain to me why their are people out there who were NEVER spanked as a child who break the law? I grew up with someone who was raised exactly like many here raise their kids, with no spanking, etc and he ended up in jail for assault and many other things. So what caused that? Do you know how your child will turn out? If so, congratulations on being a better parent. Kids are all different, so kids who are spanked doesn't mean they will break the law more than kids who weren't spanked. If you believe that, well, you already know what I think of you, so no need to go there again.

Are you able to have a conversation without name calling? But, I suppose, if that's all you've got.......

Yes, actually I can, when someone doesn't start implying things that are not true and that they know nothing about. When you spew bullshit, what do you expect??

And, its abusive.

HELLLLLOOOOO. It isn't abusive. Good lord. Why don't you take all of your energy regarding child abuse and try and stop those who actually abuse their kids, giving them black eyes, bruises, burns, etc, things that are actually ILLEGAL and stop calling us who spank which is LEGAL child abusers. Why don't you do that? Ummm, because obviously you don't know the difference between abuse and discipline.

There are many other ways to deal with children in a gentle manor.

You're right, there are other ways to discipline children and parents need to decide what works best for their child, whether that is spankings, timeouts, redirection, or I guess there are some who believe doing everything for their child works too.

Kim

sallybutton · #23 (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Ok, you win. You're stupidity has officially worn me out.

momof4boys · #24 (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 08:56 PM

Once again, you make me laugh. I'm stupid now.

You need to look in a mirror sweetie, because implying that I am the cause of my son's behaviors and choices is stupidity at it's finest. Do the world a favor and quit trying to pretend you know anything about child pshycology, because you have NO clue what you are talking about.

Niffle · #25 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007, 09:24 AM

Okay first off....arguing on the internet...wow.

Second, there is a HUGE difference between spanking and physical abuse. Huge...enormous. Like Grand Canyon vastness between the two. Thinking back, I have spanked my children rarely. My ex-husband did it much more. He also resorted to verbal and emotional abuse...hence the reason he's an ex. Our children are very well behaved and respond better to tone of voice changes rather than to a raised hand.

I've taught them that hitting is wrong and I try to teach by example. As many other mothers know, it's frustrating some times. It's hard to let a baby CIO, because hey...that's your BABY. But sometimes it needs to be done. A toddler may not understand that they need a nap, but being the adult, it's our obligation to teach them things and in the best way we know how.

It's really no one else's place to tell someone else what is the best way to raise their child, or that something they did or didn't do screwed up the child into adulthood. One thing I remember clearly is sitting at a bus stop and scolding my then 3 year old daughter for running into the street while waiting for the bus. A complete stranger came up to me and told me I shouldn't talk to my child like that. So what, I should let her run into the street and get hit by a car? That person doesn't know me, doesn't know my parenting style and sure as hell didn't know the situation.

Spanking, on occasion, as necessary, is NOT abuse. I don't spank now, as my children are older and react more to conversation then they do to physical stimulation. There is a time and a place for everything. One child will not respond to the same disciplinary measure that another does. Whatever you chose as your form of discipline, as long as it's consistent, the child will respond. It will not happen after one time.

So yeah, my 2 cents. Tear apart at will.

sallybutton · #26 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007, 06:06 PM

But, I'm sure you won't agree with the experts that told me that, since its obvious you know more that the college educated people.

Don't ASSume so much. You don't know what my background is, and where I WENT to college and what my major was.

Second, there is a HUGE difference between spanking and physical abuse.

You are entitled to your opinion but, I beg to differ.

It's hard to let a baby CIO, because hey...that's your BABY. But sometimes it needs to be done. A toddler may not understand that they need a nap, but being the adult, it's our obligation to teach them things and in the best way we know how.

No it doesn't "NEED" to be done. I don't use CIO methods as well as many other Mom's both here and IRL. I don't agree with it at all. Just as I don't agree with hitting an innocent child to "teach" them something.

It's really no one else's place to tell someone else what is the best way to raise their child, or that something they did or didn't do screwed up the child into adulthood.

I don't know if you realised or not, but this is a debate board. You bring it up, then its open for debate.

Okay first off....arguing on the internet...wow

Yep. Its a debate board. Not happykittyrainbow TTC land.

Spanking, on occasion, as necessary, is NOT abuse.

Spanking is lazy parenting. Not "necessary" at all. Are you planning on hitting the child you are pregnant with now?

momof4boys · #27 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007, 10:17 PM

You don't know what my background is, and where I WENT to college and what my major was.

You seem to think I care...I don't. You also don't know the background of myself OR my son, but yet you seem to feel qualified to judge me and assume that my parenting skills are the reason for my sons bad choices. I don't care what your education is, you have NO clue as to what you are talking about.

You are entitled to your opinion but, I beg to differ.

Well I beg to differ. Oddly enough, I just took a training class on recognizing child abuse, and spanking was brought up and it is NOT abuse. Uh, DUH. It was told that spanking would be abuse IF a mark was left. Otherwise "reasonable discipline" is not abuse. You may disagree, but the law says otherwise.

Are you planning on hitting the child you are pregnant with now?

Wow, I thought you were a b*tch before but this takes the cake.

PinkUndies · #28 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Niffle

Okay first off....arguing on the internet...wow.

And yet, here you are, wading in. Oh the irony.

sallybutton · #29 (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Niffle
Okay first off....arguing on the internet...wow.

And yet, here you are, wading in. Oh the irony.

No kidding.

fanniemae · #30 (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 08:24 PM

I knew a family that believed in nothing but praising their children for the good things. They would never discipline at them at all. They were looking for a babysitter and during the interview asked the applicants what they would do under certain circumstances. If the applicant said they would slap their hands; or, give a swat on the bottom; they were immediately told that they never, ever hit their children. I had never heard of that type of upbringing before. Has anyone else? I don't know how those children are today. I never followed up with the family. I was just curious if anyone else raised their children in this way. I hardly ever spanked my kids. Once in a while they got a swat on the butt; but, they usually listened after I explained to them why I felt they had done something wrong.

momof4boys · #31 (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 10:13 PM

I knew a family that believed in nothing but praising their children for the good things. They would never discipline at them at all.

There is a great example of lazy parenting. If there is discipline, it is not lazy because at least you are doing something to correct the behavior. Doing nothing is extremely lazy. Yes, children NEED to be praised for doing good, but they also NEED to learn what is not acceptable. That does not mean you HAVE to spank them, because there are other ways of disciplining them, but spanking IS a form of acceptable dicsipline...at least it was acceptable when my parents and grandparents were growing up. Not sure where we lost the acceptibility of spanking, but kids who grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's even some into the 80's, were much more respectible than a lot of kids today. I don't think it's not spanking as much as it is parents who want to be their kids' friends rather than parent.

Kim

fanniemae · #32 (**permalink**) 08-19-2007, 05:03 AM

I agree on that. A lot of parents want to be friends with their children instead of being the parent. That's good up to a point; but, you need to know where to draw the line.

sallybutton · #33 (**permalink**) 08-20-2007, 08:30 PM

They were looking for a babysitter and during the interview asked the applicants what they would do under certain circumstances. If the applicant said they would slap their hands; or, give a swat on the bottom; they were immediately told that they never, ever hit their children

Who would allow a babysitter to hit their child anyway? That is insane. I would always make it clear when hiring a sitter, that my kids are NOT to be hit.

momof4boys · #34 (**permalink**) 08-20-2007, 08:52 PM

I would never allow ANYONE to hit my children, THAT is insane. I don't hit my children so why would I allow anyone else to do that??? I do allow grandparents(dh's parents) to SPANK(not hit) my children, but they are the only ones who ever babysit for me and that is very rare. I work in a daycare center and even if I was allowed, I would never spank someone else's child. If I ever hired a sitter, I would be clear that they are not to hit OR spank my child.

momnid · #35 (**permalink**) 08-20-2007, 09:19 PM

Our sitter, who is a full time nanny M-F, does not spank our children, even though we do spank, for reasons I stated in my previous reply.

sallybutton · #36 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 09:57 AM

to SPANK(not hit)

Could you please tell me the difference between hitting and spanking. Because I don't see the difference between the two.

I think you need to read this article and really think about what you are doing.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child?
The Negative Effects of Spanking--and Some Healthy Alternatives
By Kimberly Blaker
Web Exclusive

A startling national survey, released in October 2000, revealed that 61 percent of adults condone regularly spanking children for inappropriate behavior.1 Sponsored by the nonprofit groups Zero to Three and Civitas and the toy maker Brio, the survey also found that parents' expectations of their children's behavior far exceeded the reality of age-appropriate behavior. According to 57 percent of the 3,000 adults surveyed, children as young as six months old could be spoiled, a fact that has been disputed by many child experts and psychologists.

Adults condone spanking for many reasons in addition to unrealistic expectations. One stems from a small number of studies that have indicated that spanking is an effective disciplinary method; however, those studies failed to compare spanking with nonphysical forms of discipline that are equally effective, if not more so. Another reason for continued spanking is that many adults believe that nonabusive spanking by loving parents is not harmful. While some studies have shown this form of spanking to be less harmful, Over the last couple of decades, a number of studies have revealed a wide range of negative effects of spanking. One three-year study, conducted by Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, found evidence that this traditional practice leads to more antisocial behaviors.2 The study found that mothers who had spanked even once during a test week reported higher rates of antisocial behavior by their children two years following the spankings.

Other studies have revealed similar effects. Three separate studies of children with serious conduct problems, conducted by Grozier and Katz (1979), Patterson (1982), and Webster-Stratton et al. (1988, 1990), found that when spanking was discontinued and other forms of discipline and behavior management were used instead, the children's behavior improved. A study conducted by researchers at McMasters University found that anxiety disorders, drug and alcohol problems, antisocial behavior, and depression were more prevalent among adults who had been spanked as children.3 Because of this vast amount of research, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a ban on school spanking.

Another serious problem with spanking is that while most parents mean well, it's easy to lose patience, especially with our often-unrealistic expectations. Light swats to the bottom can escalate after repeated failure at curtailing inappropriate behavior. More alarming, in 1991, Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik, Jr., and M'lou Kimpel of the University of Oklahoma wrote, "The child abuse rate for parents who approve of corporal punishment is four times the rate of child abuse for parents who do not approve of corporal punishment."4

Finding alternatives to spanking and making them work requires time, energy, and patience as well as careful planning and implementation, but the rewards are immense. Furthermore, with regular praise, positive behavior is reinforced, reducing the need to discipline. While results may not always be immediate, positive long-term effects will be evident.
Healthy Methods for Disciplining Your Child

Prevention is the first step in dealing with problem behavior. When you childproof your home, protect it as well as your child by placing breakables and untouchables out of reach.
For infants and toddlers, distraction often works best. Offer a toy or something to distract your child from what she can't have or a tantrum that's under way.
Time out (at the rate of one minute for each year of age) works well with preschool and early elementary children. A lengthy time out often isn't feasible for young children and can defeat the purpose. If a small child refuses his time out, calmly place him there. If he repeatedly leaves, sit with him or hold him until he learns that time outs will be enforced.
Use natural consequences. If your child leaves without a jacket, providing the weather isn't dangerously cold, allow him to learn from his mistake. Being uncomfortable or missing school recess will be strong motivators to wear a jacket in the future.
When you make rules, choose logical consequences that relate to them. If your child destroys something, make her pay for it. If your child ignores a request, take the toy or activity that she's involved with. Television and video games are often culprits, and the loss of these activities can do wonders. If older children overuse the telephone or don't come home on time, put a temporary halt to social privileges.
Give yourself a time out if you lose your cool. If another adult is around, ask him to take charge; if not, make sure your child is safe, then step out of the room. Take plenty of deep breaths. When you're thinking clearly again, determine the best course of action before confronting your child.
For children with AD/HD, special needs, or behavior problems, use a token economy to reinforce positive behavior and reduce the negative. Reward and penalize your child with tokens for various behaviors, which can later be exchanged for rewards. For tips on introducing such a program, see Harvey C. Parker's Behavior Management at Home: A Token Economy Program for Children and Teens (Specialty Press, 1996).
Finally, choose your battles wisely. Parents are often caught up in unnecessary power struggles with their kids. If you ask Johnny to drink all his milk and he refuses to take the last two swallows, what would be the outcome? If you don't have a good answer, drop the debate.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/gr...e_the_rod.html

sallybutton · #37 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 10:03 AM

Here's another one I think you might want to read.

Hitting is wrong. To hit someone is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. With children we do not want to do things that hurt or harm them. We want to be firm and consistent, yet kind and gentle... not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate.

There is no situation that changes the act of hitting someone from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically turns hurting someone on purpose into a kind or merciful thing. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do something that is normally wrong in order to stop a wrong thing. Still, hitting someone is almost never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defending ourselves from physical attack (one of few examples) might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. But the law sets a limit for this rare sort of situation. The law limits a physical defense that involves hitting someone to interrupting only or ending only the attack upon the physical safety of a person.

The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not magically make hitting a child a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. They state that parental physical aggression is not illegal. But hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. It does not model the way we want our children to act. Some day our society will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children. To stop hitting children will mean, by the very extermination of the practice, that we will be less violent.

Of course, most of us do not say to our children, "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us deny that we are 'in favor' of hitting children. However, most of us also behave as if it is a good thing to do. Most of us are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. And the law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do.

The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted.

There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him.

So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can, however, certainly count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth.

Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty. As fully human as any adult of our species, children, therefore, should be entitled to the same special care and protection any adult enjoys.

Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of a self-conscious feeling that other parents in our family or social group know better than we what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good. Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards.

Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them may only offer us a sort of shortcut when speed is a higher priority. But it is ironic that hitting them may actually make it easier, instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of us. Research indicates that several, serious negative side effects may be associated with its use. So, parents' satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, independent of the child.

Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be hit." I believe that after the briefer proscription, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed!

Continued on next post.......

sallybutton · #38 (**permalink**) 08-21-2007, 10:04 AM

Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there is a certain danger in adding "except for self-defense." He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, the parent can and should restrain the child if it continues, but she or he should never hit back." In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault.

It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their schools. Our children stand a one-in-ten chance of being hit by an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks second only to Mississippi as the "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling states.

Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it t