Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again with the generalizations. Not spanking your kids does not equal no discipline whatsoever. Spanking is only one way. My kids have boundaries, I consider myself to be a tough but fair mother. They don't get away with much and I expect a lot out of them. Perhaps it is their personalities, which may play a big part, but they hate to disappoint their parents and grandparents. Spanking has never been necessary in our house. I was always able to get through to them some other way. I fully realize that may not be possible for all children.
See I can agree with that; if your kids listen and don't push boundaries then what's the point of a spanking or a time out. But, if you see that time out doesn't work. You don't keep trying I don't know if you watch Housewives of Orange County, but Lynn is a perfect example.
You may think that logic is your friend, but there is nothing logical about this post. Your attempt to psychoanalyze spanking as a dicipline and deterrant to bad behavior over-works your mind.
Spanking has been since the beginning of time. Even in civilized countries. To follow in this ridiculous vein of dominance and submissiveness, one would have to consider the fact that likely the majority of children were spanked in earlier times (Until this last generation or so of wimpy parenting techniques of non-spankers.) and that would have produced generation after generation of dominant, heavy-handed people. There would be two extremes and none in the middle, but the vast majority would be in the dominant, heavy-handed group.
Again I will clarify. I didn't say spanking leads to dominance. It only gives an example from the parents of the dominant one hitting the submissive one. Kids develop a sense of dominance/submissiveness naturally.
Quote:
If spanking was so awful and damaging, the majority of people would have reverted back to caveman behavior a long, long time ago.
It's just been in the last couple generations, when spanking has become so tabu that society has become so touchy and bizarre. It's just been in the last couple generations that there has been so much violence at schools and childhood suicides have risen to the point of alarm.
Is there more violence in the past couple of generations than previously? Do you have facts to back that up? And if you do, is there a causal link that you can pinpoint?
Quote:
Yep, I'd rather spank and get it over with than to talk a kid to death.
Again I will clarify. I didn't say spanking leads to dominance. It only gives an example from the parents of the dominant one hitting the submissive one. Kids develop a sense of dominance/submissiveness naturally.
Is there more violence in the past couple of generations than previously? Do you have facts to back that up? And if you do, is there a causal link that you can pinpoint?
That just sounds lazy.
That makes no sense.
Lazy? That's pretty arrogant. You have no idea how much I talk with my daughter (WITH being the operative word here). I do not talk AT her. I'm not too lazy to do what's necessary at the time.
Its funny that with the new no spajust about everyhtime I go shopping i see kids that have no fear of punid=shmnet challenging their parents now days.nking that satrted years ago;parents are loosig control of their kids much more IMO.I have actaully seen tehm hit andf kick the parent when told no.That would not have happened when I was growing up.
I have actaully seen tehm hit andf kick the parent when told no.That would not have happened when I was growing up.
As a teacher, the (admittedly small) set of students I've had who have been known to hit or kick adults in authority came from homes where spanking was used. The one exception was a student from a home where it was probably not used, but there were a lot of other unhealthy issues going on to muddy the waters on that one. And to be fair, I'd say the spanking homes with these kids also had some pretty big other issues going on. So I'd say that if there really is an increase in the number of kids hitting adults, it probably isn't linked to a decrease in spanking - I think there are plenty of other societal changes as regards childrearing than fewer kids being spanked. Even that article "Some Kids Are Never Spanked" being pasted here goes on to conclude that the key may be consistancy and predictability - and I think you can achieve that both with and without spanking. You *might* get a subset of parents in the "no spank" group skewing the results who are also quite inconsistant with discipline, as the article suggests, because a no-spank policy might be popular with parents of those tendencies or philosophy. However, I certainly see a lot of parents in the "spank group" who are very inconsistant - for example, they may spank the kid when he misbehaves around them in a way that inconvienences them, but defend his behavior when the misbehavior occurs around others (say, at school).
I personally think the last points might be key if there is an actual difference in behaviors now than in times past - perhaps now there is less consensus among adults about how children should be disciplined, and the inconsistancy is reflected in children's behavior.
Quote:
My workplace actually puts this into play to help stave off employee absences. Those employees who rack up zero absences and have no instances of clocking in late each calendar month have a substantial cash bonus divvied up between them at the end of the month. Upon implementation, the number of absences/tardies DRASTICALLY declined from what was the norm when there was a punitive process (writeups, etc.) in place to handle absences and tardies. You're not punished if you have to miss work or come in late due to personal circumstances, you're simply comparatively richly rewarded for consistently showing up and being on time, and the latter's been far more effective in changing employee behavior over the long term. Positive reinforcement is absolutely useful for non-disabled populations, so long as the reinforcement is something considered to be of value.
Now this never makes sense to me. I see "positive reinforcement" effectively become punishment all the time. Take your example of rewarding employees with bonuses. If I were an employee there I might feel rewarded the first time I had no tardies and got my little cash bonus. After that, I would count on my bonus and feel punished if I didn't get it. Same thing with rewards used in the classroom - if I give some students a sticker for positive behavior, everyone else who didn't get one feels punished. In other words, "I didn't XYZ so my punishment (or negative consequence) was that I didn't get a sticker." Or "Man, I was late to work and my punishment is that I've been fined my $50." This isn't restricted to material reinforcements either - anytime I give verbal praise or acknowledgement of good behavior, I'll have a chorus of other kids telling me to look at them, they're doing it too (even when they're not - which leads to the need to point out how they actually are not displaying that behavior, which then becomes negative verbal reinforcement).
Now I guess you could argue about whether or not that's ok or not, but it always perplexes me when positive reinforcements are considered somehow better than negative ones, when really I see them all work out basically the same in the end.
As a teacher,the (admittedly small) set of students I've had who have been known to hit or kick adults in authority came from homes where spanking was used. The one exception was a student from a home where it was probably not used, but there were a lot of other unhealthy issues going on to muddy the waters on that one. And to be fair, I'd say the spanking homes with these kids also had some pretty big other issues going on. So I'd say that if there really is an increase in the number of kids hitting adults, it probably isn't linked to a decrease in spanking - I think there are plenty of other societal changes as regards childrearing than fewer kids being spanked.
There is an increase in violence and a decrease in spanking. How much more plain do you need it?
Quote:
Even that article "Some Kids Are Never Spanked" being pasted here goes on to conclude that the key may be consistancy and predictability - and I think you can achieve that both with and without spanking. You *might* get a subset of parents in the "no spank" group skewing the results who are also quite inconsistant with discipline, as the article suggests, because a no-spank policy might be popular with parents of those tendencies or philosophy. However, I certainly see a lot of parents in the "spank group" who are very inconsistant - for example, they may spank the kid when he misbehaves around them in a way that inconvienences them, but defend his behavior when the misbehavior occurs around others (say, at school).
I personally think the last points might be key if there is an actual difference in behaviors now than in times past - perhaps now there is less consensus among adults about how children should be disciplined, and the inconsistancy is reflected in children's behavior.
That all sounds pretty, but the inconsistencies are from home to home, not within each one. All homes don't spank. In all homes (non-spanking AND spanking)that are inconsistent, the inconsistency becomes the constant, so your theory doesn't wash. The behavior simply becomes button pushing in both kinds of homes. The difference is, when a child knows that the end result is a spanking, the behavior usually curbs itself. There are no qualms when all that happens is a lot of talk, hence, a rise in behavior.
Quote:
Now this never makes sense to me. I see "positive reinforcement" effectively become punishment all the time. Take your example of rewarding employees with bonuses. If I were an employee there I might feel rewarded the first time I had no tardies and got my little cash bonus. After that, I would count on my bonus and feel punished if I didn't get it. Same thing with rewards used in the classroom - if I give some students a sticker for positive behavior, everyone else who didn't get one feels punished. In other words, "I didn't XYZ so my punishment (or negative consequence) was that I didn't get a sticker." Or "Man, I was late to work and my punishment is that I've been fined my $50." This isn't restricted to material reinforcements either - anytime I give verbal praise or acknowledgement of good behavior, I'll have a chorus of other kids telling me to look at them, they're doing it too (even when they're not - which leads to the need to point out how they actually are not displaying that behavior, which then becomes negative verbal reinforcement).
Now I guess you could argue about whether or not that's ok or not, but it always perplexes me when positive reinforcements are considered somehow better than negative ones, when really I see them all work out basically the same in the end.
This is where the 'everybody wins' philosophy comes into play. The mentality these days is that we all are winners of the prize, there are no losers. It is only natural that when you EXPECT to win all the time, when you don't, you see it as punishment instead of something not earned. When society finally goes back to demanding things be EARNED instead of 'everybody wins', people won't see not winning as punishment.
There is an increase in violence and a decrease in spanking. How much more plain do you need it?
Is there?
And even if there was, is it not possible that other things have also changed in recent history that could affect children's behavior?
Quote:
All homes don't spank. In all homes (non-spanking AND spanking)that are inconsistent, the inconsistency becomes the constant, so your theory doesn't wash. The behavior simply becomes button pushing in both kinds of homes. The difference is, when a child knows that the end result is a spanking, the behavior usually curbs itself. There are no qualms when all that happens is a lot of talk, hence, a rise in behavior.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with "the inconsistency becomes the constant" - please explain?
And no, the kids who report to me that they're going to get spanked when they get home due to my sending a bad behavior note are not typically my better behaved students. The behavior is not curbing itself just because the child knows the end result will be a spanking. They do often try to dispose of the note, however.
But I will agree that a lot of talk doesn't necessarily work either. However, not spanking does not equal "lots of useless talk".
Quote:
When society finally goes back to demanding things be EARNED instead of 'everybody wins', people won't see not winning as punishment.
Fair enough, I suppose... but if people don't currently perceive it that way, then it's still so that the negative reinforcement occurs concurrently with positive reinforcement. And I didn't say I necessarily think that is a bad thing. I was simply pointing out that using positive reinforcement "in lieu of" negative reinforcement defeats its own purpose. "If I do X, then I get Y, if I don't do X I don't get Y" is the same whether it is a reward or a punishment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To follow in this ridiculous vein of dominance and submissiveness, one would have to consider the fact that likely the majority of children were spanked in earlier times (Until this last generation or so of wimpy parenting techniques of non-spankers.) and that would have produced generation after generation of dominant, heavy-handed people. There would be two extremes and none in the middle, but the vast majority would be in the dominant, heavy-handed group.
Do you have facts to back that up? And if you do, is there a causal link that you can pinpoint?
??? That must have been the funniest thing I've seen all day.
