"You were angry at me, but you just used words. You didn't hit or kick, and that's great!"

That seems a touch sad to have to reward your child for not smacking his parents.

As I understand it, this would be in reference to a child who's traditional response is hitting or kicking.

I think it's more sad when a parent can only think to hit back. "It's not okay to hit me, so I'm going to spank you to get my point across." Huh?

Whether or not it is "sad" is irrelevant. Is it effective? If it works then that is what matters.

I'm not a fan of corporal punishment, but it doesn't really make sense to equate a parent's spanking and a child's hitting. It's like equating a kidnapper who holds someone against his or her will to the judge who sentences the kidnapper to jail. The parent, as the authority figure has the right to discipline a child's bad behavior.

What's interesting is the majority of parents don't spank their kids today, and yet modern children are far more prone to violence than they were in the past when spanking was more commonplace. You have 3rd graders plotting to murder their teachers, teenagers beating up on each other and their teachers and recording it for youtube, children bringing guns to school, etc. According to the experts, spanking causes children to become violent, and yet our culture and children are far more violent today than they ever were in the past.

Are they more violent or do they just get more media attention?

Yep.

I suppose if every child is an angel, gentle coaxing would be enough. But I have two daughters who couldn't be more different when it comes to discipline.

The first never hit, bit or really threw a tantrum when she got angry. IF she did something anti-social, we would tell her we are very disappointed in her behavior and she would realize she messed up and we could tell it sank in. Sometimes we would use time-out to get the point across.

The second one would hit, bite or kick when she didn't get her way. It was her natural response to being told no. Usually her mild-mannered sister got the brunt of the abuse, but she would do it to me or my wife also. With her, a gentle scolding wasn't enough and no amount of conversation was going to change the behavior.

So, for our violent one, we would reward her for not hitting. If she got mad, then didn't hit her sister, we made sure to tell her how great she is for trying to resolve her anger appropriately. If she hit, it was a telling off and a time-out if she didn't change her behavior. No amount of our spanking or physical punishment was going to change her. She needed to be brought around to our way of thinking and also be told that what she was doing was grounds for punishment.

But to a two year old, time-out or being sent to a room, is more effective than a spanking. I could see that in our response to her. Sometimes we would lose our temper with her and smack her on the butt. That seemed to have minimal or no effect on her bad behavior. But to put her in her bedroom for two minutes, when she wants to play - the waterworks came out and sometimes even real remorse.

We're not sure if she will be "broken" of the bad habits, but it has seemed to diminshed as she grows up (she's only three).

So, yes, some kids needs positive reinforcement when they don't do their bad behavior.

I think you're looking at tht line out of context. Some kids go through phases of hitting when they can't express themselves and need to be taught how to express their anger in an acceptable way. When that is the specific problem behavior at hand, then praising the kid for having the self control to implement the new behavior (talking about the feelings) in place of the old one (hitting) helps the kid learn that he is responding correctly and helps him build a positive habit.

It could just as easily be "You finished playing with your toys and you put them back in the toy box. You didn't leave them on the floor and that's great!" or even to an adult "You loaded the dishwasher and washed the pots and pans from last night before I got home from work and needed the kitchen to make dinner. I really appreciate that."

The author just used an example of a problem behavior that is fairly common among toddlers and can become a very big problem if not handled properly.

boniva:

"You were angry at me, but you just used words. You didn't hit or kick, and that's great!"

That seems a touch sad to have to reward your child for not smacking his parents.

I thought that line was shocking, personally. I would never have dreamed of hitting or kicking either of my parents, even at a really young age. I couldn't even imagine what my parents would have done to me. Probably not a beating, but I guarantee you, whatever punishment my mother would have come up with, it would have been epic and I would never again have attempted such a thing.

To be honest, I can't even imagine "using words" with my parents when I was angry with them. What my mother said, went, period. There was no arguing, no protesting, no "expressing" my anger. When I got older, it was different, but because of the boundaries my parents set when I was young, I always knew where the line was and that if I crossed it, I would live to regret it.

I just...don't understand what parents are doing these days where having words with your mom when you aren't even old enough to dress yourself is considered acceptable, appropriate or is actually encouraged. Or where hitting and kicking even comes into the equation. And I don't think my brother or I -- my brother with a classic anti-authority streak to rival the biggest brats of our time -- were exceptional in our knowing that there were some things you just didn't do to your parents, namely hitting them. My parents set the rules, and we followed them. When we didn't, we paid the consequences. It's not a difficult concept.

I would never have dreamed of hitting or kicking either of my parents, even at a really young age.

Exactly the point. You were a compliant and submissive child. You are lucky you never thad to deal with what your parent might have done.

But what to do with the children who are not naturally as compliant as you are?

What would your parents have done if you defied them? Would they have beat you? Is that an OK solution?

You sound older than me, just wondering - do you think they would have been justified if they beat the crap out of you just for disobeying them?

I was a submissive and compliant child. However, my brother was not. As difficult as he was, though, he never once hit, kicked, or bit my mother or father, or any other authority figure. I think that is probably because as much as my brother tested limits and boundaries, there were certain limits and boundaries that were established very early on, and we both knew better than to violate them.

My mother has been a school teacher for over 20 years, in a poor school district with many "problem" kids, and she has rarely had students who acted in this way. Those who do, generally speaking, have come from homes where "parenting" is not really what parents are interested in doing. She has little experience with the wealthier end of the scale, as do I, so I can say little about kids who come from more normal homes and behave like this. In my experience, kids who come from "normal" homes don't behave like this, when boundaries have been set and discipline has been used accordingly.

And no, I don't think my parents -- or any parent -- would be justified in "beating the crap" out of their children, for this or for any other reason. That being said, cheerily saying, "Good for you! You didn't hit me this time!" in my opinion, does not send the right message to the child. It teaches the child that while hitting and kicking are discouraged and frowned upon, it is not something outside the limits of behavior parents will accept. I can't imagine my parents ever saying, "It really hurts my feelings when you hit me." The point isn't that it hurts their feelings -- the point is that it is not acceptable behavior in our society to hit our parents, our siblings, our friends, our authority figures, or anyone else.

In the real world, hitting or kicking other people, especially a figure of authority, is absolutely 100% NOT an acceptable behavior, and you will suffer extreme consequences if you do so. At school, it will get you expelled. As an adult, doing this could get you fired from a job, slapped with a lawsuit, charged with assault and battery, arrested, and possibly thrown in jail. Assaulting a police officer, the most extreme case of acting out against an authority figure, is a very heavy offense. These are, in our society, extreme behaviors with extreme consequences. I would no sooner hit my mother than I would murder a stranger. In my mind, they both come from the same pool of extreme behaviors that are beyond conceiving of committing. Therefore, these behaviors were discussed in a way that made them completely intangible to me. I could argue with my brother or not share my toys -- these were bad behaviors wherein treating my brother nicely and sharing were preferable, and I was both taught the importance of the right behavior and disciplined (the severity dependent upon my actions) when necessary. I could not hit my parents. EVER.

Had I ever done these things, I don't know what the punishment would have been. However, I can guarantee it would have been severe (a "beating" not at all what I meant), would have been long-lasting, and would have been something I would not have forgotten. Then again, my parents had taught me long before that it was not permissible behavior, and so there was no retroactive punishment to be meted out, because I knew there would be very severe punishment, unlike any I had experienced before.

I think modeling, encouraging, and re-enforcing good behavior in your children is one of the most important things you can do for your child. At the same time, establishing limits and boundaries, setting rules, and clearly defining what behavior is not acceptable or permitted is equally important. In order to have your child behave as he or she should, they absolutely have to know what they should be doing, and it is up to parents to make each day a lesson in good behavior. But if you fail to provide discipline when your child transgresses the boundaries of acceptable behavior, or even make it seem like those transgressions are somewhere in a gradient of behaviors that range from good to acceptable to merely frowned upon, not forbidden, then the child will think it is an action he or she CAN do, with only minor repercussions.

I guess my point is this -- because my parents set strong and clearly defined boundaries, it never even occurred to me that hitting or kicking my parents was something that could be attempted. There was no behavior that was preferable to that behavior. That behavior was one that I should not, in any situation or circumstance, do with anyone. It was beyond the realm of what was permissible.

Hitting people, especially authority figures, was not allowed because in real life, it is not allowed. This is not to say I wasn't taught, as I got older, how to respectfully disagree with authority or how to assert myself. But I learned how to do so within the bounds of acceptable behavior.

k84, kudos to you. I agree with everything you said. I, too, knew early on what was acceptable and not acceptable especially in terms of hitting and kicking my parents. And, yeah, I was hardly the "submissive" type - just ask my mom.

But I knew where the line was. Yes, I argued with my mom and we fought when I was a teenager, but that was the limit.

And there were CONSEQUENCES for my bad behavior - mostly getting grounded and having privileges taken away.

I just don't understand what is so wrong with that. Of course, you praise them when they are good. But I don't understand this ignoring bad behavior thing (my separate post addresses this question).

I tried the "don't say no that often" with my girls and all I got was kids that thought they had the run of the house! Give them an inch, they will take a mile (or more!).

Boundaries have to be laid out. Yes, you can try to distract or redirect babies and young toddlers. That's fine, especially because when they are that young they don't fully understand yet. But after that, you need to mete out some consequences and no, that doesn't necessarily mean a spanking. It means, the kids have to learn that what they did was wrong and bad behavior has CONSEQUENCES.

As k84 put it - in the real world, if you hit someone, you get arrested and tried for battery, as well as sued civilly by the person you hit. If you don't teach a kid at a young age that hitting will have some kind of serious consequence, won't he be surprised when he clocks somebody and gets arrested!

Kids will do everything and anything they want to do until you show them the limit and the consequence of going over that limit.

Nothing wrong with meting out consequences as well as praising them when they have done good.

To me, this article just sounded like a lot of the usual namby-pamby crap that means little in the real world.