Punishment vs. Discipline

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on November 7, 2011 at 1:07pm

Yikes! Sorry news that is. Maliciousness is evil.

Permalink Reply by Linda Roan on November 7, 2011 at 5:43pm

It was difficult to finish the article but it raised another issue besides abuse which troubles me.  How easy was it for these parents to adopt, since two of these children were adopted?

 

To be honest Ive only met clients who hug their children when their naughty and give them expensive presents when they act up.  Then expect me to change the children's behaviour!    But then I wouldnt want to go back to the "good old days" in my English school where we were  beaten in school assembly  with a ruler on our legs for talking in class either. 

 

Good subject.  Sorry its more of a comment than helpful advice.

 

Best,

 

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on November 7, 2011 at 6:07pm

With respect to advice, since that is now a post-consideration, here's my hypnothought on this matter. Punishment is altmodisch, and discipline owns a fine line. When rules are fairly determined yet broken then disciplinary action is warranted. Enforcement is essential on some level. Key is appropriateness when dishing out reprimands. Of course, the ideal training period is pre-school. ;-)

Permalink Reply by Kelly Netterville on November 8, 2011 at 5:39am

Here are my personal definitions (meaning the ones that I personally try to adhere to with my own kids):

Discipline is an awareness that there are rules, what they are and that you are expected to follow them (rules can be questioned as long as it is done respectfully and thoughtfully - not reactionary). However, questioning every rule just for the sake of questioning is not allowed (this is the part that involves questioning thoughtfully). If a child doesn't know what the rules are, that's the parent's fault and should be corrected. 

 

Punishment is the consequence for willfully breaking the rules without a good reason (common sense is the general principle here). Punishment is finite, specific, appropriate to the level of misbehavior and carried out without anger (if you're angry - take a break and come back later to punish - this also teaches children that everyone gets angry but you can control yourself and not act on the impulse of anger).

 

Punishment can include corporal punishment in my house. It rarely does as there are usually better ways to get a point across but, I have used it a few times. By using it rarely, the impact is increased. The desired effect is not the pain (which is minimal because the point is not to hurt the offender) but the embarrassment. Two or three  swats is the max and if you're constantly using corporal punishment then, it's a good sign it's not working and time to switch your tactics.

 

Corporal punishment is not abuse. Hitting a child out of anger is abuse. Intending to harm a child is abuse. 

 

I'm always leery of vague or exceedingly broad definitions that could eventually make it into law. 

 

I realize that my views aren't necessarily mainstream and some may not agree but, I'm o.k. with that and hope they have given their approach as much consideration and thought as I have to mine (and continue to do so).

 

My .02,

Kelly

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 8, 2011 at 7:25am

@ Kelley -- Great Topic!

 

@ Kelly -- Thank you for sharing your two cents - It is priceless to me -- I like how you think...

 

Michael E.

Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on November 9, 2011 at 10:40pm

Hi Kelly,

Thanks for your genuine response, which clarified that important point about corporal punishment not being abuse. I agree with you in that regard.

Ultimately, individuals have the right to raise children in the ways they deem best and appropriate. I respect your choice while reserving my own right to abstain from physical punishment for my own future grandchildren. Yes, it's too late for my own kids! They received the flat end of my hand a few times, which I confess, probably hurt me more than them. Knowing what I know now...I would not have engaged in that attempt to control them.

When we talk about the effects of physical intervention, even just "swats", I believe it's important to consider the cost of the emotional effects. We might think on how a kid will react to a spanking by laughing defiantly, continuing to act out, etc...but even as you described, the embarrassment and other related negative emotions can all the while have a deep and silent manifestation.

What are the goals of corporal punishment? If it is to change behavior, I suggest that there are more effective and positive methods that will not result in such tolls on the emotions. If it is to punish, it's hard for a child to receive that from the hand of one who represents love and security.

Furthermore, children continue, in our society, to be treated as second rate citizens and as a result, receive a different standard of treatment. Imagine that if you broke a law that you were spanked! Or sent to your room...or made to raise your hand before you could use the toilet.

Of course, this is all my personal opinion, based on my life experience and but also on those of some of my clients. So it's my 2 cents, plus!

Regards, Kelley

 

Permalink Reply by H.Y.P.N.O.S.I.S. on November 10, 2011 at 4:50am

Physical harm is painful and redundant. Words well spoken are sufficient. A reprimand using a "time out" is mindful and establishes cause for reflection. I suggest that removing privileges is the better way to go.

 

Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on November 10, 2011 at 7:32am

Great, AJ! As I read this, I saw you in your "Nanny" role, pointing to the time out chair!

AJ said:

Physical harm is painful and redundant. Words well spoken are sufficient. A reprimand using a "time out" is mindful and establishes cause for reflection. I suggest that removing privileges is the better way to go.