Disciplining Children
Once upon a time, at the end of each relevant command, I used to append the single word "now". Calmly. ("Speak softly, and carry a big stick.") My kids knew from hard experience what this meant, and always obeyed immediately and without apparent distress, though they took advantage of their permission to express dissent with much performative squealing. All going well until their mother decided it was monstrously inhuman, and started interfering. Backed by the regime, of course ....
The following objections to this simple, effective and healthy approach are paraphrased from an American Psychological Association article of May 2019.
(1) "Physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to ... problems."
Begetting, conceiving, guarding, nurturing and surgery have the same limitations.
(2) "Hitting children does not teach them about responsibility, conscience development and self-control."
See previous reply.
(3) "Parents who use physical discipline may be teaching their child to resolve conflicts with physical aggression."
And parents who drive cars may be teaching their child to drive cars without learning how to drive.
(4) "Spanking can elevate a child's aggression levels [and] diminish the quality of the parent-child relationship."
I doubt it. (Of course, spanking in self-regarding anger rather than in cool determination ("righteous anger") can do those harms and more. I leave the reader to judge the moral of this story, but here is a clue: "Be angry, but sin not" (Ephesians 4:26).)
(5) "Physical discipline can escalate into abuse."
No it can't. Just as defence can't "escalate" into attack. "Escalate" is a weasel-word suggesting that discipline and abuse share the same nature.
(6) "Children do not need pain to learn."
But sometimes they refuse to learn without an incentive. And sometimes controlling them gives us time to teach them.
(7) "We don't allow aggression among adults. It's a sad double standard that we don't give children the same protection against violence."
Again the subtle suggestion that discipline is "aggression" and "violence". But now we are approaching underlying issues. These folk reject all divinely-given order, including parental authority. They see children as having the same "human rights" as adults. To them, caring for children is the same as caring for cognitively-deficient adults.
(8) "The APA resolution presents effective alternatives that draw broadly on respectful communication, collaborative conflict resolution and parental modeling."
Of course if you surrender to your kids you will need to develop ways to appease and collaborate with them. I say, better to conquer them and let them develop ways to appease us!
(9) "Sometimes simply ignoring the behavior ... is the best tactic."
I agree. But not when a clear command is being violated; then "Zero Tolerance" applies.
(10) "What about a preschooler who can't be reasoned with? ... Think strategically and plan ahead. If your child is prone to act out while you get groceries, bring snacks and toys to redirect the child or choose a time to shop when the child isn't sleepy."
Appeasement! Planning our lives around their whims!
(11) "Calling a time-out for certain behaviors can be effective but it is often misused as a stand-alone strategy. ... Looking at a wall for five minutes won't teach a child how to behave. ... Time out from positive reinforcement (TOPR) ... makes time-out an opportunity to regroup and think about how to do better next time."
They may be right here, but I have never understood time-outs. I think if control is maintained there is no need for such tricks, but let me know if I need to study the matter.
(12) "Any perceived short-term benefits from physical discipline do not outweigh the potential detriments."
Yes they do. (And note the obstinate weasel-word "perceived". They cannot even admit there could be real pros to set against the cons. To them it is really a matter of principle, and all their "research" is camouflage.)