Erm... late in the discussion I know, but - I recall from first year psychology lectures a few decades ago that the first word children in our society generally learn is "No", after "Mama" and "Dada".

I don't suppose that's changed all that much, although maybe it has?

What if, instead of "No", "Mama" or "Dada", it's now something more like "Macca"?

Spare the burger and spoil the child.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Romany,
You can be very proud of your son, that’s quite an achievement!

US,
“A boy is not suited to enduring mental cruelty.”
Are you saying that girls are? Whack the boys and verbally abuse the girls? Nice!

I reiterate that neither boys nor girls should have to be disciplined through either verbal assaults or physical punishments.
I have always tried to see the best in my own and other’s children and any improper behaviour I just put down to the fact that they’re still learning. I doubt that people will make less mistakes or better choices in life when they have been verbally assaulted or whacked as children. Inflicting pain, or making a kid feel bad about themselves for any reason does not speed up the learning process.

I wish that there were free parenting courses available for all pregnant women and their partners and for people with young children who need support BEFORE the child has turned into a ‘problem’.

If I had to address one thing that I find creates annoying or difficult behaviour in children, it would be the parents’ inconsistency.
E.g. a parent says NO several times but the child goes ahead and does it anyway.
The parent turns a blind eye and lets the child get away with the behaviour.
Or, the child asks again and again (Bart Simpson method) until the parent can’t stand it any longer and gives in. The child gets away with it, again.
I have seen this happening so many times.

I have never been a strict parent, but once I said no I meant NO.

There is nothing wrong with telling a child that there will be consequences if they do (or don't do) something.
“If you don’t clear away your toys then I will do it myself, instead of taking you to…” (name something they like e.g. a friend’s house, or the beach).

BD I really hope that you have changed your mind about smacking after reading Robert’s link?
What do your granddaughter’s parents think about smacking, do they agree with you?

Celivia,

“A boy is not suited to enduring mental cruelty.”
'Are you saying that girls are?'
No. BTW: I didn't write the story, I think I explained that in the posting. I don't think the author was saying that either.

'Whack the boys and verbally abuse the girls? Nice!'
I didn't say that either. Though I think boys are more equipped to understand the language of violence and girls the language of mental torment. Just look in the playground. Neither should be encouraged though.

I do think parents seem to be very judgemental of each other. I don't think all children are the same and as easy to handle, and I don't think 100% of how manageable the child is can be attributed to the parenting. It's easy to sit on one's high horse and say 'I don't need to smack', or boast about how good a parent one is. Even if you think a child is unmanageable due to previous parenting mistakes, that's irrelevant to the differences in difficulty of controlling different children in the here and now.

All I'm saying is, as a male, and copping a lot of verbal abuse and some smacking and shaking as a child, it's the verbal abuse that was more frightening at the time, and has had the lasting scars. But of course I would rather boys and girls experience neither.

Interesting point Foxy.. "Why avoid punishment"? indeed. It's a fact of life, and we definitely punish anti social activity in a variety of ways, including jail.

So.. Celivia and Romany seem to have been blessed with 'perfect' children :) I wasn't.. and I've seen many who were not.

You see.. there is the issue of "The strong willed child"

Here's how it works Celivia :)

(Child): Mum..can I have an icecream? (1 hour b4 dinner)
(Mum): Sure..you can have one after dinner.

NOW.. *huge grin*..who.. among us has not found that it doesn't end there?
(Child) but I WANT ONE ....nowwwwwwwWWWWW.....

Celivia can take us into the twilight zone of how to cope with that :) but I'll be a bit adventurous myself.

APPROACH 1. "we reason".. "dear... if you have one now, you wont eat your dinner"
RESPONSE (Child) "I don't care.. I realllly want one NOWWWWWWW!"
RESPONSE TO RESPONSE (mum) "If you keep this up, I'll send you to your room until dinner" (= "no")
(child).. BUT I WANNNNNT ONE NOWWWWWWW!
(Mum) "ok.. you were warned.. into your room right now"!

(Child) "I don't WANT to goto my room.. no no nooooooo".. screams yells, stamps foot"

Now..I'm guessing that some are speculating that the Mum lost the plot much earlier than this particular moment in time, which of course produced this result.

But back to my intended topic :) aah..thought you could escape eh.. or making this a 'to smack or not to smack' topic..no..its not about that.

I'm exploring the philosphical foundation...the 'morality' to which we appeal in regard to child compliance or raising.

Robert..
I was up front in my first 2 posts about where I'm going with this.

I think our foremost thought in 'child compliance' is our cultural norms. But what is the moral 'framework' for that?
We do need one, or the kids will one day say "You can't force me to do that, I don't believe in Santa anymore, and your rules are just made up...like him"

CELIVIA.... sorry missed responding to your question (which is in fact a distraction from the topic actually about me changing my mind on smacking)

Firstly, the number of times I smacked was very very few. I used the '1, 2, 3 method...and I told them if u don't stop (or start) that by the time I count 3, then you KNOW what will come. It mostly worked. Even when it didn't I never 'thrashed' the kids.. just a bit of a whack on the bum. But I always reasoned that they smacked themselves.. because they clearly knew 'after 3 comes.... ouch'.

We did use the 'into the hole for a while' approach..and the 'no tv approach. But they seemed to suffer a heck of a lot MORE by being socially marginalized in the family, than by a quick whack.

The tone of voice from a big 'daddy' is usually enough. The repeated or half hearted nagging from a mum is something kids tweak to VERY quickly, and they play as much as they can with it.

FIRMNESS..
PREDICTABILITY..
CONSISTENCY..
CREATIVITY..
are probably the best child rearing tools. (all contained within the envelope of love)

Regarding my daughter.. she initially said "I'm not going to smack my kids" :) but now that she has a daughter... she understands how difficult it can be at times when they act up. (even at 1) Theory and practice are quite a long way apart in some things. But ask that same question in 12 months and I might have a better idea of how it's going.

so..enuf said on that, lets try to stick 2 the topic please.

"We do need one, or the kids will one day say "You can't force me to do that, I don't believe in Santa anymore, and your rules are just made up...like him"

David, you seem to be unwilling to accept that when you follow it through you have made a choice about the source of your moral authority. You may say I've found god therefore I have an absolute basis for my rules but in doing so you ignore the layer before belief in your god where you decided (deliberately or not) that you would choose belief in that god over all others.

Your firm foundation rests on yet another foundation built of the same stuff as the rest of our foundations. It may make it easier to fool the kids but in the end it's still about what we choose.

It's is not and cannot be absolute because at some point it comes down to a choice to go a certain way.

R0bert