I was anti-spanking until my son hit age 2

[monicatholic]

Calm!!! Yes, we used calm and babycalm. My husband used to joke i should take it myself.

Mab, please dont ever use a belt on a human person. Spankings with the hand on the bottom are questionable enough. Whippings, please God. Whippings should never ever ever happen. I’m so sorry you experienced this. Please dont ever do this to another person. For pity sake, it’s even against the law to whip animals in most states.

 

[mini_me640]

Calm!!! Yes, we used calm and babycalm. My husband used to joke i should take it myself.

Mab, please dont ever use a belt on a human person. Spankings with the hand on the bottom are questionable enough. Whippings, please God. Whippings should never ever ever happen. I’m so sorry you experienced this. Please dont ever do this to another person. For pity sake, it’s even against the law to whip animals in most states.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was raised by being spanked, and It was incredibly effective

I was a problem child, eventually diagnosed with ADHD, and I had 2 younger brothers and we would non stop fight

time outs or corners were a joke, we would just leave time out , I was stubborn, and at times down right rotten

getting the belt, and or spankings were the only effective way to abruptly stop my bad behavior

I grew older and played sports, and then I started being good so I could continue to play sports!

I will raise my child with spankings, I lived with a family who was trying to raise the kid with timeouts, and either they were not implementing it right, but it didn’t seem very succesful

and im sure it works great for some people , but so do spankings IMHO

You are a testimony to resilience, but while corporal punishment doesn’t automatically ruin a child, if it is needed more often than once or twice a month, it does raise the risk that the child will be more physically aggressive (and yes, apparently the researchers did correct for the types of behaviors the child was prone to). This and the danger of parents actually abusing their child when they lose it themselves is why the American Academy of Pediatrics advocate against corporal punishment.

Most parents who use corporal punishment effectively actually use it quite rarely, and they use it in a well-defined, predictable way. My parents spanked, but I can only remember being spanked three or four times in my whole childhood. My older brothers fought quite a bit, but even for them the spankings were reserved for rather rare occasions.

As for time outs, they do have to be enforced, or they can be counter-productive, yes. Whatever the parent does as a consequence to deter bad behavior, the parent had better be sure that a) the kid sees the consequence as worse than the gratification of getting their licks in *at the time that they’re deciding whether to get the licks in *and b) they can use it consistently. (I have seen those little wheels turn, as the child’s frontal lobe decides whether or not to give the inclinations of his lower brain the green light!)

If a small child is physically aggressive, the main thing is to keep him from offending. Getting practice in consolidates the behavior as a reaction, and that is not good for them. Consequences after the fact are not as effective as heading the behavior off at the pass. That requires looking for signs that the behavior is coming, but preventing commission of even some attacks is worth it.

 

[Serap]

Calm!!! Yes, we used calm and babycalm. My husband used to joke i should take it myself.

Mab, please dont ever use a belt on a human person. Spankings with the hand on the bottom are questionable enough. Whippings, please God. Whippings should never ever ever happen. I’m so sorry you experienced this. Please dont ever do this to another person. For pity sake, it’s even against the law to whip animals in most states.

yes. the belt is abuse.

 

[Serap]

You are a testimony to resilience, but while corporal punishment doesn’t automatically ruin a child, if it is needed more often than once or twice a month, it does raise the risk that the child will be more physically aggressive (and yes, apparently the researchers did correct for the types of behaviors the child was prone to). This and the danger of parents actually abusing their child when they lose it themselves is why the American Academy of Pediatrics advocate against corporal punishment.

Most parents who use corporal punishment effectively actually use it quite rarely, and they use it in a well-defined, predictable way. My parents spanked, but I can only remember being spanked three or four times in my whole childhood. My older brothers fought quite a bit, but even for them the spankings were reserved for rather rare occasions.

As for time outs, they do have to be enforced, or they can be counter-productive, yes. Whatever the parent does as a consequence to deter bad behavior, the parent had better be sure that a) the kid sees the consequence as worse than the gratification of getting their licks in *at the time that they’re deciding whether to get the licks in *and b) they can use it consistently. (I have seen those little wheels turn, as the child’s frontal lobe decides whether or not to give the inclinations of his lower brain the green light!)

If a small child is physically aggressive, the main thing is to keep him from offending. Getting practice in consolidates the behavior as a reaction, and that is not good for them. Consequences after the fact are not as effective as heading the behavior off at the pass. That requires looking for signs that the behavior is coming, but preventing commission of even some attacks is worth it.

I’d like to add that for some children, time outs are not effective. Sometimes a child needs a calming down place where they go when they are out of control. I prefer the calming down place and they come out when they are calm.

If they are disobedient, then I believe in taking away a favourite toy or privilege (depending on age).

 

[EasterJoy]

I’d like to add that for some children, time outs are not effective. Sometimes a child needs a calming down place where they go when they are out of control. I prefer the calming down place and they come out when they are calm.

If they are disobedient, then I believe in taking away a favourite toy or privilege (depending on age).

I think the main thing is that they know it will always be something, and a something specifically chosen to be disagreeable at that particular moment. It is the deterrent value that makes it work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean something that is overtly punitive. A person’s behavior is deterred not only by avoiding the bad, but by having a better alternative to prefer and having the self-control to choose it. That may require tailor-making the parental response to bad behavior.

The thing with 2 year olds is that they’re a little young for the cortex of their brains to reliably have overrule power when the lower regions are flooded. In addition to the deterrent, it is worthwhile to help them find methods of giving the upper cognitive functions the upper hand. That is where it is more a coaching job than a policing job. It is key to teach them to identify themselves with wanting the higher behavior, to want to be able to achieve the higher behavior, to feel good about even partially successful attempts at higher behavior, and not just to fear doing something else. So if a kid loses it, the response doesn’t need to be a simple “Stop that!” but can be a more unruffled “now, now, buck up, we can do better than that. Get a breath, come down to earth, this is not getting you anywhere.” The child, flooded with emotion, totally fails to bring you under the sway of his emotions. That helps him come down from that tree, if he chooses to.

When a 2 year old’s lower inclinations for dealing with anger or frustration or desire take over on a habitual basis, however, there is always the danger that the higher thought center will see advantages in choosing those reactions as a preferred response. Also, the higher thought center may come to self-identify with that way of acting, can feel entitled to act that way. So even when a child is way too young to be able to *choose *correct behavior, it is not a good idea to allow them forbidden behaviors. You have to re-direct or keep the behavior out of reach or something, but there has to be something, or you’ll have a lot of practicing to un-do later, to everyone’s dismay.

For instance, I remember somebody saying that one of the driving forces in helping him to refrain from bad behaviors, even though other kids were doing it, was his mother’s rejoinder when he was growing up: Our family does not do that. It was not a recriminating thing she’d say, but rather a unifying principle that he was going to be expected to learn simply because he was one of them, regardless of what anyone else did.

 

[Serap]

I think the main thing is that they know it will always be something, and a something specifically chosen to be disagreeable at that particular moment. It is the deterrent value that makes it work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean something that is overtly punitive. A person’s behavior is deterred not only by avoiding the bad, but by having a better alternative to prefer and having the self-control to choose it. That may require tailor-making the parental response to bad behavior.

The thing with 2 year olds is that they’re a little young for the cortex of their brains to reliably have overrule power when the lower regions are flooded. In addition to the deterrent, it is worthwhile to help them find methods of giving the upper cognitive functions the upper hand. That is where it is more a coaching job than a policing job. It is key to teach them to identify themselves with wanting the higher behavior, to want to be able to achieve the higher behavior, to feel good about even partially successful attempts at higher behavior, and not just to fear doing something else. So if a kid loses it, the response doesn’t need to be a simple “Stop that!” but can be a more unruffled “now, now, buck up, we can do better than that. Get a breath, come down to earth, this is not getting you anywhere.” The child, flooded with emotion, totally fails to bring you under the sway of his emotions. That helps him come down from that tree, if he chooses to.

When a 2 year old’s lower inclinations for dealing with anger or frustration or desire take over on a habitual basis, however, there is always the danger that the higher thought center will see advantages in choosing those reactions as a preferred response. Also, the higher thought center may come to self-identify with that way of acting, can feel entitled to act that way. So even when a child is way too young to be able to *choose *correct behavior, it is not a good idea to allow them forbidden behaviors. You have to re-direct or keep the behavior out of reach or something, but there has to be something, or you’ll have a lot of practicing to un-do later, to everyone’s dismay.

For instance, I remember somebody saying that one of the driving forces in helping him to refrain from bad behaviors, even though other kids were doing it, was his mother’s rejoinder when he was growing up: Our family does not do that. It was not a recriminating thing she’d say, but rather a unifying principle that he was going to be expected to learn simply because he was one of them, regardless of what anyone else did.

agreed