SafeAsMilk wrote:How would you deal with a kid that lies and talks back without punishing them?

Neither of my kids have ever really lied to us about anything serious, so I don't know. When I see examples in other families of kids with really wierd lying stuff going on - like making up complete cock and bull stories about someone having said or done something that they didn't do at all - I tend to think it's a symptom of something more deeply dysfunctional going on in the kid or the family as a whole. So I suppose that's what I meant by dealing with parenting issues in a more global way - one needs to set up and maintain an environment in which that sort of thing doesn't occur to the kid as a useful way to behave in the first place.

Talking back - OK, as my son has entered teenagerhood there has been a couple of times I've resorted to taking away privileges when he's really pushed the boundaries too far despite repeated warnings. But generally they're welcome to argue about anything they want. I wouldn't impose rules if I didn't believe they were justified and feel willing to explain and defend them.

Also, what kind of punishments have you used? Do any of them have a physical equivalent? If so, why did you choose that punishment over the physical one?

When they were little, having to go and sit on the naughty step. Once when daughter refused to say sorry, having to stay in her room and not interact with us until she did (boy did she draw that one out). These days, we hardly ever need to but the last times we have it's been removal of privileges (primarily not being allowed to go on the computer).

My wife was adamant when we had kids that physical punishment was out of the question. I don't know whether I would have used it, or how I would have chosen, otherwise.

Beatsong wrote:That's a completely circular argument.

It isn't an argument. It describes how cultures work. People pass things on to the next generation, their language, their religion, and so on, even things that are completely arbitrary, like which side of the plate you put the fork on, or whether you have forks at all or only chopsticks, or if you have a spork. Cultures are circular.

But your response elucidates why I no longer bother arguing with people. You appear to want an argument, that is, something that works according to the rules of logic and reason. Not only that, but it requires the assumption that when people do everything, they do it because of logic and reason that is working inside their heads. You appear unwilling to look at anything else.

That's fine, of course. You're entitled to do what you like or what you are used to doing, which is what everyone does. However, doing things that way mean that you are never going to understand the processes in human beings that make them do things. Ever. Cartesian rationalism is just plain wrong, and by "wrong" I mean that it doesn't describe how human brains work. 't you like not understanding that and being frustrated about not being able to figure it out and enjoy expressing frustration, then I guess you can be happy. If not, then it's your problem.

Beatsong wrote:I'm confused though. If you accept that it's OK to use violence in self defence, you are saying that violence is acceptable in some circumstances but not in others - and that it's therefore both necessary and appropriate to teach children the difference between those circumstances. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any problem in teaching them that administering it as part of a reasonable, dispassionate system of justice and punishment is another of the times when it's acceptable (to which we could probably add: when fighting as a member of the armed forces in a just war).

Except for the niggling technicality that violence is not acceptable as a form of punishment. In fact, systems of "justice" that mete out violence as a punishment are generally regarded as not "reasonable" precisely due to using violence in this way.

Beatsong wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Even if the physical act doesn't actually hurt the child, it sends a message that use of violence is an acceptable thing to do. Which gets all the more frustrating when the child uses violence on other kids (even as self defence), only to get told it is wrong along with more violence as a punishment.

But self defence is one case where it is an acceptable thing to do.

Yes, but defensive violence is significantly different from punitive violence.

With defensive violence, the goal is avoiding harm. With punitive violence, the goal is retribution.

Someone who has internalised Premise #2 will often perceive their actions to be defensive when they are in fact as aggressive as those of their adversary.

Yes, that makes sense, thanks.

However more generally, it's easy to refute the "we shouldn't spank kids because then they'll grow up thinking violence is OK" argument.

Just come back to the question of punishment generally. Everything we do to exert power over changing kids' behaviour, involves something that it's not generally OK for adults to do to each other. We don't generally approve of adults imprisoning each other, yet we send naughty kids to their rooms and tell them they can't come out. We don't approve of adults taking each others' stuff - in fact we call it "theft" and it's one of the things most universally recognised across cultures as a crime - yet we "confiscate" things that belong to children who have misbehaved and expect them to know the difference.

It's not even just confined to punishment. Every area of human interaction has various different sets of rules that apply to different relationships and situations. The rules about how a parent relates to their child are different from the rules about how adults relate to other adults they don't know, which are in turn different to those about how adults relate to other adults they DO know, and so on...

We don't generally expect all of these things to be impossible for children to navigate. Isn't insisting that there must be only ONE set of rules governing infliction of physical punishment that applies equally to everything, just special pleading?

I would say that insisting that parents are allowed to use a form of punishment prohibited in all other instances constitutes special pleading.

Parents have a unique authority in respect to their children because they have unique responsibilities. Since one of those responsibilities is teaching the child how society works, things like revocation of privileges and restrictions on freedom mirror the kinds of punishment used in wider society*. The use of violence as a punishment teaches attitudes towards violence that are the antithesis of justice. Since using violence as a punishment violates the responsibilities incumbent upon a parent, parental authority does not extend to the use of violence.




* Not perfectly, of course. Money taken in the form of a fine is not returned, a favorite toy is. A child's freedom might be restricted by being grounded, but it's nowhere near as serious as a prison sentence. Mini-punishments for mini-people.

SafeAsMilk wrote:How would you deal with a kid that lies and talks back without punishing them?

Lying we haven't encountered too much and when we have we haven't punished it. We just made her aware we knew. Talking back is what kids do, and I'm one of those irritating people who will mostly just ignore it because it's the kid learning how to communicate, asserting themselves and working out where the line is. Also sometimes kids have a hard time at school with people ragging them and teachers shouting at them and they come home with all this pent up shit. I'd rather she had a safe place at home to let off steam at someone who won't punish her. When the line is reached we tell her, but mostly we just let her run with it without responding and she eventually gets the message that we don't respond to it. This is happening a lot at the moment.

Talking back is a bad thing?

I want my kid to be able to solve issues by talking and negotiation and to think critically and argue sensibly for a position. I encourage it, and if it's inappropriate or petulant I can deal with it verbally, often by laughing (yes, I'm awful).

This policy has been excellent at home but has caused difficulty at school. Some teachers can't handle kids who speak up when they see inequity (rightly or wrongly). I consider it successful parenting.

Well, it is when the parents are in the wrong. Must be nice being able to use violence to stop people from pointing out one's hypocrisy.

Fenrir wrote:Talking back is a bad thing?

I want my kid to be able to solve issues by talking and negotiation and to think critically and argue sensibly for a position. I encourage it, and if it's inappropriate or petulant I can deal with it verbally, often by laughing (yes, I'm awful).

This policy has been excellent at home but has caused difficulty at school. Some teachers can't handle kids who speak up when they see inequity (rightly or wrongly). I consider it successful parenting.

Exactly. They're working out how to communicate and express themselves. I ignore it when it gets particularly disrespectful, but otherwise I just let her go on.

I tend to think that most kids wo lie to their parents do so because they're afraid of severe punishment.

Yep, I'd agree with that.

SafeAsMilk wrote:How would you deal with a kid that lies and talks back without punishing them?

Also, what kind of punishments have you used? Do any of them have a physical equivalent? If so, why did you choose that punishment over the physical one?

Kids reflect what's been modeled for them, so if the parent speaks disrespectfully to a child it's only natural for the child to learn to respond disrespectfully back. Being respectful to each other is of utmost importance in our family, so when my child talks disrespectfully to me I'll say something like "that sounded disrespectful, can you try it again?" And that goes for me too. I'm only human and have caught myself speaking disrespectfully many times and then apologized for it.

I do allow my child to question my decisions, though. I want him to. I don't want to teach him to blindly follow anyone, including me. There have been times when I've asked him to do something and he replied "why do I have to do it?" To which I responded (after taking a deep breath, because it can be annoying) "that's a really good question and I'm glad you asked." Then I'll explain myself. I'm not going to lie to you. It takes patience on my part.

As far as lying, we've had some small problems with that. My child knows he won't be punished, so he doesn't have to lie for that particular reason. I also don't set him up to lie. If I know he did something wrong, I'll just come out and say "I see you did (insert offense) . . . " rather than pretending I don't know, then asking about it, and giving him a chance to lie. The few times he has lied, it was for minor things, like saying he brushed his teeth when he didn't. We've had several discussions about the importance of honesty and trustworthiness, and now that he's eight he's really getting it. Again, it just takes patience. I would still not punish him for lying because I want him to always feel safe to come to me with the truth.

i believed it myself, am responsible for hitting my cousin, promised to never do it again and asked forgiveness,broke it twice out of instantaneous anger for certain things he said, i have since reformed and i never get upset enough for any form of violence on just about any issue. Was a moron, what can i say, fucking moron who fucking never saw things from point of compassion, only saw it from point of whether i can cleverly hold on to a position, was not interested in truth. The reason is that people can get very frustrated with children and do such things out of frustration, things we would not do to most obnoxious adults. if people are taught meditation or tools for better parenting with less frustration,anxiety, make it available to all and start something like cooperative parenting to hep out parents. All this will end, but not arguments, its about empathy, teaching them about how to deal with naughty children

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses to my question

I'm probably going to find myself a parent in the next year or so, so the question of how to correct a child in a more thoughtful and effective way than my parents did is something I've been thinking about constantly. I'd love it if there was a way to never have to hit my kid, even better if I can somehow avoid punishments altogether. I just can't help the nagging feeling that if it was as simple as treating your child like a grownup person and reasoning with them, everyone would do it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of modeling good behavior -- being consistent, reasoning with your kid and creating a feeling of openness between you. But eventually the little one's got to realize they don't have to stay on the time-out step just because you tell them to, especially when the reason you're putting them on the stair is because they're being unreasonable. Also, it's all well and good to let your kid mouth off to you as they learn how to effectively communicate, but I would find it unacceptable for them to do it to other people, their grandparents for instance. There needs to be some sort of sense of a real, tangible boundary, doesn't there? How does one do this without punishment prior to the age where they can be reasoned with?

Anyway, apologies for a mass response to many excellent posts, I'll try to reply to at least some of them directly!

I started out feeling the same way. I didn't want to use spanking, but didn't really know anything else so I tried timeouts when my little one was about 18 months old. It didn't work because he didn't understand that he was supposed to sit there and I didn't know how to enforce it without force. I eventually found a simple, easy-to-read series of books that have become my go-to reference for all parenting problems. The series is called Positive Discipline.

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

But self defence is one case where it is an acceptable thing to do.

Yes, but defensive violence is significantly different from punitive violence.

With defensive violence, the goal is avoiding harm. With punitive violence, the goal is retribution.

Someone who has internalised Premise #2 will often perceive their actions to be defensive when they are in fact as aggressive as those of their adversary.

Yes, that makes sense, thanks.

However more generally, it's easy to refute the "we shouldn't spank kids because then they'll grow up thinking violence is OK" argument.

Just come back to the question of punishment generally. Everything we do to exert power over changing kids' behaviour, involves something that it's not generally OK for adults to do to each other. We don't generally approve of adults imprisoning each other, yet we send naughty kids to their rooms and tell them they can't come out. We don't approve of adults taking each others' stuff - in fact we call it "theft" and it's one of the things most universally recognised across cultures as a crime - yet we "confiscate" things that belong to children who have misbehaved and expect them to know the difference.

It's not even just confined to punishment. Every area of human interaction has various different sets of rules that apply to different relationships and situations. The rules about how a parent relates to their child are different from the rules about how adults relate to other adults they don't know, which are in turn different to those about how adults relate to other adults they DO know, and so on...

We don't generally expect all of these things to be impossible for children to navigate. Isn't insisting that there must be only ONE set of rules governing infliction of physical punishment that applies equally to everything, just special pleading?

I would say that insisting that parents are allowed to use a form of punishment prohibited in all other instances constitutes special pleading.

Parents have a unique authority in respect to their children because they have unique responsibilities. Since one of those responsibilities is teaching the child how society works, things like revocation of privileges and restrictions on freedom mirror the kinds of punishment used in wider society*. The use of violence as a punishment teaches attitudes towards violence that are the antithesis of justice. Since using violence as a punishment violates the responsibilities incumbent upon a parent, parental authority does not extend to the use of violence.

Again, a very good answer.

It's true that infliction of physical pain is no longer seen as a valid form of punishment in wider society, in any kind of civilised country, whereas the other things I mentioned are. So there's more sense and continuity in allowing parents to do those things to their children than in allowing them to smack them.

No point in hitting a kid for talking back. Some big fucker in a bar will teach them that at some time in the future.

Scar wrote:I tend to think that most kids wo lie to their parents do so because they're afraid of severe punishment.

Some also do it for other manipulative reasons - eg to get a sibling in trouble, or to get attention.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Thanks for all the thoughtful responses to my question

I'm probably going to find myself a parent in the next year or so, so the question of how to correct a child in a more thoughtful and effective way than my parents did is something I've been thinking about constantly. I'd love it if there was a way to never have to hit my kid, even better if I can somehow avoid punishments altogether. I just can't help the nagging feeling that if it was as simple as treating your child like a grownup person and reasoning with them, everyone would do it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of modeling good behavior -- being consistent, reasoning with your kid and creating a feeling of openness between you. But eventually the little one's got to realize they don't have to stay on the time-out step just because you tell them to, especially when the reason you're putting them on the stair is because they're being unreasonable. Also, it's all well and good to let your kid mouth off to you as they learn how to effectively communicate, but I would find it unacceptable for them to do it to other people, their grandparents for instance. There needs to be some sort of sense of a real, tangible boundary, doesn't there? How does one do this without punishment prior to the age where they can be reasoned with?

I'm certainly not going to say I've found it possible to dispense with punishment altogether. I mentioned that as an aspiration, but haven't managed it as a reality.

But I think you might be underestimating the extent to which children really, naturally, WANT to conform to the expectations of adults. As long as their environment is healthy, loving, supportive, honest etc, it's actually the most natural thing in the world for a young member of any species to look at the older members around it and think "right, that's what I have to do to get on then". It's when we fuck things up that they start looking for other ways of getting on - such as getting attention by being the clown or the rebel, because they can't get it any other way.

laklak wrote:No point in hitting a kid for talking back. Some big fucker in a bar will teach them that at some time in the future.

This is part, what I tried to argue on the other thread. Some on here don't believe in punishment at all and I find it hard to reconcile that with the reality waiting out there for the kids. My basic premise is that punishment can be a controlled way of teaching kids about consequences.

Coastal wrote:

laklak wrote:No point in hitting a kid for talking back. Some big fucker in a bar will teach them that at some time in the future.

This is part, what I tried to argue on the other thread. Some on here don't believe in punishment at all and I find it hard to reconcile that with the reality waiting out there for the kids. My basic premise is that punishment can be a controlled way of teaching kids about consequences.

Punishment = consequences arugment only works when said punishment is proportional and/or representative of real world consequences. Rather then personal vengeance.