Talk:Non-violent child discipline

'''Article listed on Votes for deletion July 4 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion may be found at Talk:Non-violent child discipline/Delete.'''

This was previously a subsection in the spanking article: "alternatives to spanking". I think it needs editing towards an NPOV presentation, not deletion.

_________________________________________________________________________________

When I wrote this article last night, in the spanking article, under the alternatives title, it was with the hope that it would be seen as a practicable alternative to spanking, as the subtitle has suggested. I am glad to see it moved here, but it needs to stay, whether or not it receives extensive rewrites. User:Raina

This article is great. if anything it is written with excessive care to not present a POV. The vast majority is uncontentious and should be stated as fact. Rather than 'they believe' Erich 06:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a load of crap. You are in serious denial of our basic human structure and needs. What kind of tree hugging malarkey are you trying to people? People like me are always left to repair this well-meaning but unrealistic expectancy of establishing self-disipline within our children so that may become functioning members of society. --68.80.223.233 18:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In what way have you had to "repair this well-meaning but unrealistic expectancy of establishing self-disipline within our children," user 68.80.223.233? I would seriously be interested in reading about your struggles in dealing with children who have actually been reared this way and not by parents who did not apply their time, energy, and their personal discipline in rearing their children. Raina 06:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the idea of hugging being used as discipline is quite stupid, but if you're given reasons for these things being in the list, it makes more sense.

Scott, I am not sure what has not been explained regarding hugging as discipline in the short article. My desire was to keep the article short, and with that in mind, I believe it is fully explained there. I think that what may be confusing is that all discipline is not uncomfortable or painful; some discipline is quite pleasant. For example, praising a child for work well done is a very pleasant for both persons, but it is one of the modes of discipline: it reassures the child s/he has done well and can continue to do well. Time taken with a child for play or for an outing is also very pleasant discipline, because this teaches the child that s/he is worthy of your presence, your time, your attention and spurs the child on to good behavior. The list goes on. . ..

Regarding hugging as discipline, there are hugs used to distract the child and to keep the child from negative behavior. This is discipline. Then there are purely affectionate hugs. These, too, are discipline, because they teach the child that s/he is worthy of love and helps them make decisions toward behavior that bring the caregiver's approval. Do these paragraphs answer your question? Raina 05:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

not even close to NPOV
Just look at the title. "Non-violent", hmmm? This suggests that spanking is about doing violence to children, rather than the loving correction that it is. A normal spanking is not fun for either party, and it doesn't cause injury.

Violent dicipline would be... well, there's that lady who used her gas range (cooktop, burner, etc.) to punish her kids.

All throughout the page, it is suggested that parents who spank (well, anyone not a "non-violent parenting advocate", and we all know what that refers to) are a number of bad things: inconsistent, lazy, nagging, shaming, unwilling to admit mistakes, and so on.


 * Maybe the article has changed some since you wrote this, because I just read it all right now and though it sounded pretty NPOV. However, I do agree that non-violent may not be the best word. Maybe "non-corporal" or something along those lines would be better. Jamesters 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Violence is violence. Look up the definition.  If you want advocate that some violence in the form of spankingis acceptable, that is your choice, but stop trying to control language to fit you personal views.  --207.215.78.126 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AlbertCahalan and SimonP
The problem with the statement is not that it is a "downside" but that it is not true.


 * How is it then that I have seen this with my own eyes? Clearly you have never tried this stuff on stubborn and/or intelligent children. Do you even have children? Are they boys? Look, I'm trying to restrain myself in editing... in truth, all evidence suggests that this stuff is a load of crap. If this page is going to be your personal peace-love-and-happyness blind hope page, back to the VfD it goes. Good riddance. Otherwise, you need to let people fix the massive NPOV problems. AlbertCahalan 16:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very grateful that you are attempting to restrain yourself. Thank you.  If you have experienced this result, fine.  However, I have not seen a single report of such a response.  Can you produce one, or are you basing this merely upon your limited experience with a limited number of children?


 * I certainly don't claim that all children will always be crafty enough to exploit such methods of discipline, so I only need 1 counterexample. I have 3 boys, ages 20 months to 5 years. (3x as many young boys as your user page says you've had) This is exactly the age range in which most of these methods are supposed to work, yet they do not. As for the distraction method specifically, I will admit that it generally works up to about age 7 months, and sometimes a bit beyond. (that's months, not years)


 * If you'd like an expert opinion though, how about pediatric psychologist Dr. James C. Dobson? He's written a number of books on the topic of raising children, including The New Strong-Willed Child. He advocates spanking as a means of non-violent child discipline. (BTW, you left this out - a proper spanking is not violence) He does point out that about 1 in 4 kids are fragile sorts that need not and should not be spanked. Perhaps you were lucky enough to have one. He also notes that temperments run in families.


 * Note that Dr. Dobson, despite being a spanking advocate, also advocates many of the guidelines that you credit to "non-violent parenting advocates". (this is OK if you accept that spanking is not violent; otherwise it is a NPOV problem) It is not right to paint spanking advocates as being basically stupid, violent, and lazy. All parents need to give time and thought to discipline and exercise self-control. All parents should be imaginative and quick-thinking, though to require this would suggest some rather evil and impractical policy of testing and sterilization! All parents, even those who primarily use spankings, need to vary things according to circumstances. All parents need to avoid hypocrisy (by "modeling" and admitting errors). All parents need to deliver appropriate praise and rewards. All parents need to be consistent, figure out motives for bad behavior, and choose their battles. All parents should strive to find plenty of time to spend with their children. All parents should apologize when mistakes are made. All parents should strive to "rear a good, productive, independent adult" without expecting to "produce a perfect child". AlbertCahalan 18:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * While I understand that some consider Dobson an expert on child-discipline, I would not. Regardless, he is only one "expert."  Of all the child-rearing experts I have read over many years, he would be the only one who would agree with you, if, indeed, he does.


 * We cannot measure what is known of child-rearing by our very limited personal experiences. If that were so, then I could add to my experience of rearing a boy and a girl the fact that I also helped rear one each of male and female step children, my experience as a professional daycare provider in my young years, and the 5 out of 8 grandchildren I have cared for as their parents worked, along with the preschool and the schools I once worked in and the services I once provided in church daycares during services.  While the above certainly gives me some expertise, what does this count for in comparison to those who have studied children at great length?


 * You seem to think that boys are more "crafty," more "intelligent," and/or "exploitive." I have not found that to be so, so our experiences in this vary.  Among my eight grandchildren, for example, one of the boys and one of the girls are what Dobson defines as strong-willed because one was, and one is, deliberately "in your face" beligerant and willful as well as what you seem to define as "crafty," more "intelligent," and/or "exploitive."  However, among the others, one of the girls was far more intelligent with her defiance -- so much so that those who did not know her well did not recognize it.  Two of the boys, while they are just as intelligent as the others (one possibly more intelligent), are gentle and quiet -- watchers and learners.  Craftiness does not indicate more intelligence except in the area of craftiness.


 * Additionally, I never wrote that "spanking advocates [are] being basically stupid, violent, and lazy." If this is the way you read the article, I sincerely apologize for that, but this is not what was said.  Nor am I so ignorant not to know that all parents, spankers or not, may use the methods suggested and that "All parents should strive to 'rear a good, productive, independent adult' without expecting to 'produce a perfect child.'"  Again, I never wrote that this was not so. Raina 03:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just an opinion (as opposed to an expert opinion) but my observations strongly suggest that kids are not all the same. Big differences from the day they are born. Just because your child does fine without corporal punishment doesn't mean mine will. I really think some kids need it. Parents who love their children enough to do the hard thing (discipline and restrictions, etc) will raise better young adults than parents who are lazy, weak, and short-sighted. Children who don't have to face consequences for their actions will not develop into nice people, and for some kids, physical discipline is the most effective form of negative feedback. --Gersh Lundberg, MD


 * Since your note appears here, I must assume that it is to me, since it addresses the idea I have put forward that children do not need to be struck until they bend to submission. I find it interesting that you assume that those of us who do not strike our children do not discipline them and that such children to not "have to face consequences for their actions," thus such children "are lazy, weak, and short-sighted."  This is very interesting assessment but it remains very short-sighted on your part.  You apparently have not investigated the ideas you oppose.  Further, placing an "MD" after your name on the internet is not at all impressive; I could do the same thing. Raina 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * COUGHdrdereksmartHACK*. Dr. Thyroid McCrackhead PhD, MD, GCMG, FTSE, TENNESSEE, DipEd, DipStick, WTF, BRB, Hons., Oxon


 * Ah! Gotcha.  I should have read the articles you suggested above before I wrote that note, so I erased it.  Thank you.  Raina 16:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why this isn't NPOV
For the record: Personally, I've never seen any of the kids I used to know who were physically discipline turn out to be anything other than overly aggressive and more willing to use violence than those who weren't. I wouldn't use physical force against my children.

Now then. This article is not NPOV, because it presents only one opinion throughout: that 'non-violent' discipline is always better than physical discipline. It also includes outright advice where the article talks to the reader: "Praise and rewards (hugs, time with the child, etc.) for good behavior similarly goes much further as discipline than does punishment, while nagging and shaming tear down both trust and respect for the parent. Giving the child your time is a discipline tool that will also keep her on track, as will consistent family time, laughter, listening, and genuine respect for her, her person, her ideas, and her talents." Now, this might be appropriate for the section of smoking pipe that provides instruction on the best method of filling and lighting a pipe. However, I'm not so sure that Wikipedia should be editorialising on subjects like parenting, where there is no defined 'best way' to produce a well-adjusted child, unlike pipe smoking, where there is a definite and easily-provable best method of packing and lighting the pipe.

At the very least, the article requires opposing arguments, perhaps in the manner of capital punishment, and a modification of the editorialising tone. It manages to explain both sides of a debate adequately without resorting to editorialising. Or perhaps the arguments for and against physical discipline could be presented on child discipline, which is currently a stub, with this page retained as a more in-depth exploration of what 'non-violent child discipline' means, but without the editorialising? Hig Hertenfleurst 09:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misleading, possibly not neutral point of view.
After considering the article (as of 5:30 CST on 29 July, 05) I have a number of comments about sections which seem not to meet levels of accuracy and neutrality which I prize in Wikipedia. There are also a couple of very nice bits which I applaud. First paragraph, second sentence: parents who spank are contrasted with experts in child developement, while opponents of spanking are grouped with experts. First paragraph, third sentence: Implication that these methods are always applied more carefully and thoughtfully then spanking. Many of the listed methods are quite open to careless and quick application, so sweeping implications need to be reined in. Second paragraph: Is this a list of child discipline methods not including spanking, or is it a list of suggestions on how to avoid spanking? This is one of several points at which the article seems unsure. The statement as currently written is broadly agreed to by all schools of child discipline. However the article seems to make a contrast between on one hand, always using one of these methods while never spanking and on the other hand, always spanking while never using any of these methods. Either not NPOV or very poorly written. Time-outs and Hugging. While these are non-spanking they probably are mis-labeled as non-violent. Both depend implicitly on the superior force of the person providing discipline. Reason. The example given isn't primarily reason, it is delay, followed by physical removal (which again involves superior force). Reason. Given the tendency for definitions of child discipline methods to be misunderstood I like the idea of giving a concrete example. This could be profitably extended to the all of the methods in this article, in order to prevent misunderstanding. Reason. again. The actual example is also considered bad practice by many proponents of non-violent discipline because it rewards the child with parental attention, and the reward is seen as a result of the behavior. Praise and rewards: again accuracy. This section implies that nagging, shaming, and not spending time with the child always accompany spanking. In my home region the parents who spend the most time with their children are home-schoolers, and they are mostly strong advocates of spanking when appropriate. Consistency: This paragraph has nothing to do with the stated purpose of this article, and the attitude described is the majority opinion among advocates of all forms of child discipline. It could equally well be inserted in an essay advocated corporal punishment. Putting it here implies that only those opposed to spanking are for consistency. Either NPOV or needs to be moved to another article. Final Thoughts, first point. These same objections, along with the exact same responses are also raised going the other direction. Why does the article, only defend one side? Final thoughts, second and third points. See consistency, these points are general child-raising comments and equally applicable to spanking and non-spanking. Probably NPOV because of implying that spanking parents disagree.

Misleading, possibly not neutral point of view.
After considering the article (as of 5:30 CST on 29 July, 05) I have a number of comments about sections which seem not to meet levels of accuracy and neutrality which I prize in Wikipedia. There are also a couple of very nice bits which I applaud. First paragraph, second sentence: parents who spank are contrasted with experts in child developement, while opponents of spanking are grouped with experts. First paragraph, third sentence: Implication that these methods are always applied more carefully and thoughtfully then spanking. Many of the listed methods are quite open to careless and quick application, so sweeping implications need to be reined in.

Second paragraph: Is this a list of child discipline methods not including spanking, or is it a list of suggestions on how to avoid spanking? This is one of several points at which the article seems unsure. The statement as currently written is broadly agreed to by all schools of child discipline. However the article seems to make a contrast between on one hand, always using one of these methods while never spanking and on the other hand, always spanking while never using any of these methods. Either not NPOV or very poory written.

Time-outs and Hugging. While these are non-spanking they probably are mis-labeled as non-violent. Both depend implicitly on the superior force of the person providing discipline.

Reason. The example given isn't primarily reason, it is delay, followed by physical removal (which again involves superior force).

Reason. Given the tendency for definitions of child discipline methods to be misunderstood I like the idea of giving a concrete example. This could be profitably extended to the all of the methods in this article, in order to prevent misunderstanding.

Reason. again. The actual example is also considered bad practice by many proponents of non-violent discipline because it rewards the child with parental attention, and the reward is seen as a result of the behavior.

Praise and rewards: again accuracy. This section implies that nagging, shaming, and not spending time with the child always accompany spanking. In my home region the parents who spend the most time with their children are home-schoolers, and they are mostly strong advocates of spanking when appropriate.

Consistency: This paragraph has nothing to do with the stated purpose of this article, and the attitude described is the majority opinion among advocates of all forms of child discipline. It could equally well be inserted in an essay advocated corporal punishment. Putting it here implies that only those opposed to spanking are for consistency. Either NPOV or needs to be moved to another article.

Final Thoughts, first point. These same objections, along with the exact same responses are also raised going the other direction. Why does the article, only defend one side?

Final thoughts, second and third points. See consistency, these points are general child-raising comments and equally applicable to spanking and non-spanking. Probably NPOV because of implying that spanking parents disagree.

unreferenced
Would be good to add some sources for some of the claims in the article. I'm sure that they are plenty, but I am unsure which are most applicable.

Roodog2k 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some information about scolding I feel should be added
I feel it should be noted under the scolding section that in Quebec, Canada exessive scolding can be considered (leagaly) as bad as physical abuse. I don't have a reference for this but if I find one before someone makes the edit then I will do it myself. I would greatly appriciate someone making the edit for me. Thankyou Edward Nardella

Move the article.
I am an opponent of spanking but this article has got to move. What about "alternatives to spanking" or something like that? mirageinred 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When
When do children come to an age where they are able to understand reasoning? Thrane 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate ages?
Can someone find some references or even just guidelines as to the age at which each method is appropriate? Obviously, all children are different, and develop at their own pace, but first-time parents (me) cannot tell when to expect their child to start responding to or even understanding a certain method, and a rule of thumb is helpful. --128.135.131.100 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)