The results of the godly tomatoes method on kids

[Guest]

I call bunk on those studies. Because constructive outlets for aggression are generally considered a development good and there's a lot of history to back that up. And not all aggressive outlets are aggression in and of themselves.

 

Sports. Martial arts. Chopping wood. For starters.

 

To say any form of aggressive outlet is just fostering more aggression seems to be a toss of baby with bath water to me.

I don't mean to butt in and speak for BlessedMama, but I don't think she's talking about sports, martial arts and chopping wood. She was talking about the advice that says, "punch a pillow, scream into a pillow, smash one of those squishy things in your hands, etc., to release pent-up anger."

 

The book You Are Now Less Dumb talks about the myth of catharsis. Here is an excerpt:

 

If you think catharsis is good, you are more likely to seek it out when you get pissed. When you vent, you stay angry and are more likely to keep doing aggressive things so you can keep venting.

 

It’s drug-like, because there are brain chemicals and other behavioral reinforcements at work. If you get accustomed to blowing off steam, you become dependent on it.

 

The more effective approach is to just stop. Take your anger off of the stove. Let it go from a boil to a simmer to a lukewarm state where you no longer want to sink your teeth into the side of buffalo.

from the website: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/08/11/catharsis/#more-833

[Murphy101]

The point of cathartic actions is to have a HEALTHY outlet however we feel. When we are excited and happy, we exclaim for joy, clap our hands, do a little jig or whatever. But when it comes to working through negative emotions, especially anger, the social attitude is to shut it down completely and have no physical reactions.

 

LOTS of people say things like:

 

I had a really crappy day, I'm going to go for a walk/run or go to the gym to spar with a punching bag or whatever. Many people suggest putting boys in sports to help with attitudes.

 

I would absolutely NOT tolerate throwing things about the house or screaming rages.

 

A genuine catharsis, to me anyways, should not just be violence within a confined space.

 

For some of my sons, going out and doing something physically demanding and hard with their bodies was very cathartic.

 

Of course it is not a catch all anymore than any other parenting tactic, but it sure was effective. Especially ages 10-14.

[8circles]

 

Here's What Getting Spanked as a Kid Did to Your Personality, According to Science

 

[ktgrok]

 I do think you can inadvertently teach a baby that he needs you to rock him to sleep or stay with him until he falls asleep, though, and that you can also teach them they will be fine falling asleep alone.

 

Yeah, but then you miss out on sleeping baby snuggles. And rocking a baby to sleep is one of the very best parts of parenting. That sweet memories what keeps me going when they hit the terrible twos.

SaveSave

[gardenmom5]

With a huge amount of respect because, in general, I like you and what you have to say ;) while it may work well for you, the idea of catharsis has essentially been abandoned. It is more than one scientific study that has shown that acting out agressively increases the feeling of anger. If it is useful for you, I can find some. If it's not, that's okay too. :)

This is why I said connected to sensory stuff and being overstimulated. It was the only way I calmed down. Non-NT kids have their own quirky function.

 

I managed my kids stimulation levels, and prevented them getting so worked up they'd break down that way. My mother didn't manage mine. At. All.

I've known parents who deliberately get their kids worked up. Including mine & grandmother. It's a power trip. That's disgusting to me. It also not what I'm talking about. Usually I was simply ignored because. . . Emotion. . .

 

I would be upset, by myself, with no other external means of calming. I would exhaust myself crying, and eventually I connected underlying tension was reduced. She left me to cry myself to sleep many times.

My kids have me for a mother.

 

But I do see the similarities between me and dudeling. He exhausted me, and I had better support.

[Mergath]

I call bunk on those studies. Because constructive outlets for aggression are generally considered a development good and there's a lot of history to back that up. And not all aggressive outlets are aggression in and of themselves.

 

Sports. Martial arts. Chopping wood. For starters.

 

To say any form of aggressive outlet is just fostering more aggression seems to be a toss of baby with bath water to me.

 

If you're using martial arts as an outlet for aggression, you're doing it wrong. And you'll probably get kicked out. The martial arts teach discipline and self control, not aggression.

[Zinnia]

..

Edited June 28, 2016 by Zinnia

[Murphy101]

If you're using martial arts as an outlet for aggression, you're doing it wrong. And you'll probably get kicked out. The martial arts teach discipline and self control, not aggression.

Yes they teach discipline and self control while learning to hit, throw, and kick - all forms of physical aggression. Unless you are telling me it's okay to tackle hit kick tried and more when not on the mat or in the field? I bet not.

 

Aggression in and of itself does not denote lack of discipline or self control.

 

Neither is anger.

 

Neither is frustration.

 

Neither are many other emotions. They are just normal human healthy emotions *when properly directed in a constructive outlet*

[maize]

Yeah, but then you miss out on sleeping baby snuggles. And rocking a baby to sleep is one of the very best parts of parenting. That sweet memories what keeps me going when they hit the terrible twos.

SaveSave

 

This is so true for me, I love cuddling my babies.

 

I do end up with less sleep though, and if that made me as non-functional as it does some of my friends I would have to modify my parenting behavior.

[gardenmom5]

Having played sports, practiced martial arts and chopped wood, I don't think those pursuits are especially aggressive. Active and perhaps competitive, yes. Aggressive? For the most part not really. Even contact sports, wrestling or boxing aren't aggressive in the same way that hitting someone outside the mutually understood rules of the sport would be or destroying property is. Channeling anger into active work or sports isn't the same idea as cartharsis which held that screaming or throwing things helped people calm down.

 

I got a bunch of free brick.  lots of mortar had to be cleaned off before it could be used.  It was very theraputic to clean brick - I could clean about 10 before my arm  gave out.  and I had useful cool used brick.

 

However, I did read a book written by a woman who found throwing cheap dishes (she picked up at a thrift store) at a concrete wall quite  theraputic as she was going through the process of healing from childhood s3xual abuse.

[LucyStoner]

Wendy's picky food thread reminded me that I rejected milk and dairy from a really young age. As soon as they switched me from formula to cow's milk I was done and refused it. My parents reaction was to not worry and let me eat other stuff. Over the years, some people (extended family, day care providers) treated this as defiance and tried to force me to drink milk or have cheese on my burrito or whatever. Once I was old enough to talk (I had a verbal delay so we are talking later than you'd expect) I was diagnosed with a dairy allergy which I aged out of but remained lactose intolerant. I shudder to think of a kid like me being disciplined so he or she would consume something that made them sick. There was no way for me to tell them why I refused milk for several years after it was introduced. I am glad my parents just took my refusal as communication (oh, she doesn't like milk. No more milk) rather than me being a brat. I recall a daycare provider not letting me go outside because I wouldn't drink my milk. Did I drink it? No. I "spilled it" because I correctly assumed they wouldn't keep me in all afternoon for spilling the milk like they were threatening to do if I didn't drink it. ;)

Edited June 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SKL]

As an aside, am I the only one who has children who respond to being buckled into a carseat as if I were chaining them into a medieval torture device?

 

Wonder if anyone has studied the effects of those on children? I've never heard an adult call restraining a child in a carseat abuse, but based on the reactions of certain of my babies I'm pretty sure they experience it as such. Maybe I'm raising an entire generation of traumatized human beings. I don't say that flippantly, it really is a huge emotional deal for them. 

 

I've seen many tots have fits over having their diapers changed.  Much bigger reactions than most kids have over a spank in the rear.

 

One of my kids started to throw a fuss over being restrained in her car seat.  I was not in the mood so I popped her in the butt one time.  That was the first and last time either of my kids fussed over the car seat.  Worth it IMO for peace on both sides.  :)

 

I don't understand why, but kids do seem to manufacture their own trauma if life doesn't give them enough of it.

[ktgrok]

This is so true for me, I love cuddling my babies.

 

I do end up with less sleep though, and if that made me as non-functional as it does some of my friends I would have to modify my parenting behavior.

 

Oh sure, there's a middle ground. I just get angry at books that say to NEVER EVER rock a baby to sleep or nurse one to sleep. EVER. Or you will break them. Those poor mamas that miss that, and never get a sleeping baby on their breast or in their arms!

[ktgrok]

Isn't there a Bible verse about not provoking a child to anger????? Do they not have that verse in their patriarchal version???

 

Edited:

 

Found it! And it's RIGHT AFTER the verse about children obeying their parents!!!!!!!  How do they not understand this??? I agree, EVIL is the only answer. 

 

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord. 21Fathers, do notprovoke your children, so they will not become discouraged.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ktgrok

[SparklyUnicorn]

Wendy's picky food thread reminded me that I rejected milk and dairy from a really young age. As soon as they switched me from formula to cow's milk I was done and refused it. My parents reaction was to not worry and let me eat other stuff. Over the years, some people (extended family, day care providers) treated this as defiance and tried to force me to drink milk or have cheese on my burrito or whatever. Once I was old enough to talk (I had a verbal delay so we are talking later than you'd expect) I was diagnosed with a dairy allergy which I aged out of but remained lactose intolerant. I shudder to think of a kid like me being disciplined so he or she would consume something that made them sick. There was no way for me to tell them why I refused milk for several years after it was introduced. I am glad my parents just took my refusal as communication (oh, she doesn't like milk. No more milk) rather than me being a brat. I recall a daycare provider not letting me go outside because I wouldn't drink my milk. Did I drink it? No. I "spilled it" because I correctly assumed they wouldn't keep me in all afternoon for spilling the milk like they were threatening to do if I didn't drink it. ;)

 

Yeah my older kid has a laundry list of foods he won't touch.  I don't force it.  For one thing several of my family members have or have had similar issues.  All the forcing in the world did not do anything but cause psychological distress.  No thank you.  There are plenty of foods in the world.  Sure it's not convenient sometimes, but whatever. 

[fairfarmhand]

  Sure it's not convenient sometimes, but whatever. 

 

And that's the crux of the matter to me.

 

Having a child who obeys instantly every time, doesn't cry much, doesn't ask much of you is much more convenient than one who you actually have to parent.

 

Like last night, my son was dawdling about getting ready for bed. When my oldest was his age, I'd have barked at her and disciplined her for not obeying. With him, I got off the couch, took him gently by the arm and led him downstairs to his room where he happily got into bed. And he went to sleep on a happy note instead of a defeated, upset note. It was inconvenient, but it was fine. I've matured enough to realize that if I can figure out a way to help him mind me that's much better than us always being at odds with one another. It's normal for 8 yos to dawdle about going to bed. That doesn't mean he's evil.

 

Sometimes I do have to be stern and pull out the "I'm the parent and you;d better take that seriously." card, but I don't want it to be an every day thing that ruins the peace and harmony in our home.

 

If I'm in charge, I don't have to continually prove it to him or to myself.

[SparklyUnicorn]

And that's the crux of the matter to me.

 

Having a child who obeys instantly every time, doesn't cry much, doesn't ask much of you is much more convenient than one who you actually have to parent.

 

Like last night, my son was dawdling about getting ready for bed. When my oldest was his age, I'd have barked at her and disciplined her for not obeying. With him, I got off the couch, took him gently by the arm and led him downstairs to his room where he happily got into bed. And he went to sleep on a happy note instead of a defeated, upset note. It was inconvenient, but it was fine. I've matured enough to realize that if I can figure out a way to help him mind me that's much better than us always being at odds with one another. It's normal for 8 yos to dawdle about going to bed. That doesn't mean he's evil.

 

Sometimes I do have to be stern and pull out the "I'm the parent and you;d better take that seriously." card, but I don't want it to be an every day thing that ruins the peace and harmony in our home.

 

If I'm in charge, I don't have to continually prove it to him or to myself.

 

Yeah but really I'd rather have a less cooperative kid than a kid that only does what I want because he is afraid of me.  I think not being completely cooperative 100% of the time is far more beneficial in the long run. 

 

Oh bedtimes.  I gave up on that long ago.  I suppose that's not parenting, but I got so sick of the battles.  There was no real reason to force them into bed at a specific time though so I just didn't. Things would probably be very different if we had to be up early and out the door.  We don't though.  So this works for our situation. 

[Bluegoat]

Not to pick on anyone, but I honestly think much of this has to do with a lack of autonomy or some kind of discernment. I have read Sears, Gaskin, Ezzo, What to Expect, a lot of gentle parenting stuff from the LLL book table that I can't remember, TWTM, Charlotte Mason...etc, etc. From birth to school age stuff. There is not one book out there where I've taken it and tried to rigidly apply every single thing in it to the point of distress in my children or myself. I'm not saying this to toot my own horn, but rather to say that I just can't imagine a mindset where people read and then just mindlessly do whatever some other person says to the point of misery. I can't fathom it because why? I know people do it, but I can't figure it out.

 

I didn't stop feeding my hungry baby when I read Ezzo, I didn't stop vaccinating my kids on schedule when I read Sears, I didn't have a homebirth because I read Gaskin, I didn't start beating my kids because I read an article on RGT,my oldest went to school for K and 1st even though we read TWTM.

 

And yet, from each of those books I usually found something to glean that helped me in some way.

 

I am not a perfect parent by any stretch of the imagination. But I just find it so disheartening that apparently there are so many people out there who are looking for a formula that works to make perfectly well-adjusted kids and then try to rigidly apply a formula to human beings. What does encourage me, I guess, is that I know many people in my real life who do not operate this way. I do wonder how much of this stuff is due to a book or books and how much is just the personality of the individual reading the stuff.

 

I think one thing that disturbs me in some books is that the authors seem to be saying, explicitly or implicitly, that there is in fact a formula, and if you go outside it something bad will happen.

 

I never read Babywise or anything from that perspective when my kids were small - the closest thing might be Ferber who didn't have that vibe at all.  But I did find that Sears had a very strong element of that, though it was much less explicit than the more conservative books.  All kinds of stuff about how, if you lost touch with your baby, it was a downhill slope, for example.

 

To me, this is really very difficult for people who are more vulnerable in their decision making, and that may be a fair number when it comes to babies.  So many people have no experience before their first child, they don't have siblings they helped with, and they are hormonal and not thinking so clearly.  I think it's closely related to the "oh, no, I ate lunchmeat, will my baby be ok" way of thinking.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think one thing that disturbs me in some books is that the authors seem to be saying, explicitly or implicitly, that there is in fact a formula, and if you go outside it something bad will happen.

 

I never read Babywise or anything from that perspective when my kids were small - the closest thing might be Ferber who didn't have that vibe at all.  But I did find that Sears had a very strong element of that, though it was much less explicit than the more conservative books.  All kinds of stuff about how, if you lost touch with your baby, it was a downhill slope, for example.

 

To me, this is really very difficult for people who are more vulnerable in their decision making, and that may be a fair number when it comes to babies.  So many people have no experience before their first child, they don't have siblings they helped with, and they are hormonal and not thinking so clearly.  I think it's closely related to the "oh, no, I ate lunchmeat, will my baby be ok" way of thinking.

 

I'm going to write a parenting book.  It'll be one page long and the page will say, "There is no formula." 

 

:laugh:

[FaithManor]

I'm going to write a parenting book. It'll be one page long and the page will say, "There is no formula."

 

:laugh:

Brilliant!

[MercyA]

Isn't there a Bible verse about not provoking a child to anger????? Do they not have that verse in their patriarchal version???

 

Edited:

 

Found it! And it's RIGHT AFTER the verse about children obeying their parents!!!!!!!  How do they not understand this??? I agree, EVIL is the only answer. 

 

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord. 21Fathers, do notprovoke your children, so they will not become discouraged.

 

Thank you, Katie. I've been thinking about this thread a lot, and those were some verses that kept coming to mind. I noticed that the commandment to obey is specifically directed to the children themselves ("children obey your parents in the Lord" instead of "parents, force your children to obey"). This is NOT to say that Christian parents shouldn't require obedience--I do--but this commandment is surely intended for children old enough to truly understand what "obey" means. 

 

I think a lot of the problem arises when parents ask their children to obey foolish, unnecessary, and developmentally inappropriate requests. 

 

Also, my daughter knows she can question, discuss, and even politely challenge, although we don't allow excessive complaining or arguing. She knows, too, that if ANY authority figure asks her to do something contrary to Scripture, she should NOT obey.

 

We believe in a divinely established order in relationships, and it makes for a peaceful home. That does not mean we do not equally value teaching our child to think for herself, so that when she is no longer under our authority (and while she is, too) she will make her own wise decisions.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I love to excessively complain.   No darn clue why, but yep, I'm a complainer.  And we all are here.  Maybe it's genetic.  LOL

 

 

[Bluegoat]

About "single swat" vs. "Abuse": of course they are not the same thing. I admit my kids all got a "swat" on the clothed behind once in a while; one kid, fewer times than I have fingers on one hand; another kid, more than I have fingers and toes altogether. HOWEVER! I do not call any of those "swats" my finest parenting moments. These spanks most often amounted to a parental temper tantrum, combined with that fear I spoke of, the fear that they will "never" learn.

 

The thing is, should we really be trying to quantify how lightly and infrequent a "swat" should be to classify it as far from abuse? Or is the better question this: why should we "swat" at all? Mergath said this, and I agree - is any hitting between adults acceptable? If DH smacks me with the flyswatter but it doesn't really sting because it hit my jeans, is that okay? No it is not okay!

 

Or even with our own kids...there is an age, a point at which most parents recognize that, even if they "swatted" the kids as toddlers, they can't "swat" that kid anymore. So, if you can find your way to better interaction once they are 8 or 10 or whatever age, why not exercise that restraint when they are 2? I think the latest age any of my kids got a "swat" on the clothed behind with my hand was 4, but I don't say that as a point of pride! i see that as, "the latest age I ever let parental anger get the better of me in a physical way was age 4."

 

No, a little swat now and then is not the end of the world. But, it has also been proven that other non-physical methods of correction work as well or better, therefore doesn't it seem wise to move away from striking children? There are many parent-child interactions in which physical correction is a complete non-option: foster care, adoption of traumatized children, special needs, daycare and school, coaching and mentoring, and others. If it is possible to raise a good, kind, open, secure and pleasant child without ever hitting them, or messing with their minds, who wouldn't prefer that?

 

Thomas Edison said it so well; that is why I quote him in my signature. Non-violence leads to the highest ethics.

 

I don't tend to think swatting is necessary either, though I also don't think it is necessarily bad.

 

But I don't really get the "you couldn't do that to an adult" thing.  I also could not send an adult to a time-out, that would be abusive and illegal.  Now, some people think they are also abusive to kids, but I think that is kind of bs. 

 

Even the age thing is tricky IMO.  It might be that parents learn better techniques.  But - a child of 8 also is probably able to benefit from and respond to a lot of things a four year old won't, and others that would work at four would not work at eight.

[MercyA]

I love to excessively complain.   No darn clue why, but yep, I'm a complainer.  And we all are here.  Maybe it's genetic.  LOL

 

LOL, Sparkly.  :lol:

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't tend to think swatting is necessary either, though I also don't think it is necessarily bad.

 

But I don't really get the "you couldn't do that to an adult" thing.  I also could not send an adult to a time-out, that would be abusive and illegal.  Now, some people think they are also abusive to kids, but I think that is kind of bs. 

 

Even the age thing is tricky IMO.  It might be that parents learn better techniques.  But - a child of 8 also is probably able to benefit from and respond to a lot of things a four year old won't, and others that would work at four would not work at eight.

 

Then again, you couldn't do that to a dog.  If anyone gets a whiff that someone used physical punishment to train a dog people flip out.  So what is the deal?  Kids don't get treated as well as dogs?  What is the reasoning?

[Bluegoat]

This is so true for me, I love cuddling my babies.

 

I do end up with less sleep though, and if that made me as non-functional as it does some of my friends I would have to modify my parenting behavior.

 

I've had three who nursed to sleep and co-slep.

 

I've decided that with number 4, I will probably try things differently - I'm pretty thourouly convinced after my three, and caring for two others, that people who say there is no habit formed by falling asleep nursing that affects waking are just wrong.  And that I will not be able to manage that many kids on that little sleep.  And that it isn't bad for them to learn to drop off after being nursed but while still somewhat awake.

[PeacefulChaos]

I never rocked my babies to sleep because I never had a desire to...

 

Don't feel sorry for me. I've held tons of sleeping babies - mine and others. Just not when I could be doing something else and they could be in bed.

 

Just saying... :leaving: :D

[Bluegoat]

Then again, you couldn't do that to a dog.  If anyone gets a whiff that someone used physical punishment to train a dog people flip out.  So what is the deal?  Kids don't get treated as well as dogs?  What is the reasoning?

 

Hmm, I don't know, I think most people I know with dogs do use swats to train at some points, and people don't particularly object. 

 

Where I see people get more bent out of shape is with beatings, and things like force fetching, which are actually a lot like blanket training.  And, I'd say, rightly so.

 

People can be odd about dogs too though, in treating them like they are people, which is IMO often unfair to them.  Dogs and people are just different, I think.

[Guest]

I don't tend to think swatting is necessary either, though I also don't think it is necessarily bad.

 

But I don't really get the "you couldn't do that to an adult" thing.  I also could not send an adult to a time-out, that would be abusive and illegal.  Now, some people think they are also abusive to kids, but I think that is kind of bs. 

 

Even the age thing is tricky IMO.  It might be that parents learn better techniques.  But - a child of 8 also is probably able to benefit from and respond to a lot of things a four year old won't, and others that would work at four would not work at eight.

 

Because the thing is, when you think something is an acceptable tool, you use it; it isn't in your mental category of "Things I Must Never Do," so it remains an option. If it remains an option, there is not a mental barrier to doing it. I believe that the world would be a better place if the "tool" of hitting was simply not there. We know that it is possible to raise and influence children without hitting, because there are many situations where hitting IS NOT A TOOL that is possible. 

 

The reason I see parallels to how adults interact is because, as I said before, there was once a time when nations as a whole sanctioned the "right" of adults (usually white male adults) to hit other adults over which they had power. They could hit their domestic servants, their slaves, their wives, their adult female children, their children, their horses and their dog with impunity, as long as they did it "correctly"; this is where the idiomatic expression "Rule of Thumb" comes from. You can switch your wife or servant as long as the "rod" was no bigger in circumference than your thumb. So there was a time in the public consciousness when some women or servants or whatever simply "had" to be struck in order to do as they were told. I am saying I would like to see a time when this is not believed of *anyone* else; why should children be denied this basic protection against harm? 

 

It is NOT that I think any swat on the butt is abuse. I don't. If that were true, than I have abused my kids. But we KNOW in society that it is not *necessary* to strike children to teach them and many studies indicate that children behave worse when hit. Therefore, it is a fantasy of mine that we as a society would realize that this is a "tool" that is obsolete and unnecessary. That it would go into that mental category of Things I Must Never Do. 

[Murphy101]

I do think spanking is an acceptable "tool". I think it is no different than any other parenting tool or tactic, it can be used properly or it can be perverted into abuse.

[umsami]

OK, super late to the party.  I actually bought the Godly tomatoes book years ago.  (yes, I know.  Embarrassing.)

 

I ended up recycling it, as there was a lot that was troubling to me, but the one thing I took from the book that I actually think can work was the idea of tomato staking.  Basically, instead of banishing a kid to time out land in his room, you keep a kid who is not behaving well close to you.   This kind of fits in with the Ross Green "Kids do as well as they can" type philosophy in that I really don't think that kids want to be bad.  So if Child X is getting into trouble, by keeping him or her near me, I can usually figure out what was going on (hungry, tired, need more attention, sibling issue, etc.)  Of course, in being honest, sometimes I want the break.... I really don't want to figure out why... and so it's actually far easier for me to say "go to your room". ;)

 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by umsami

[Guest]

Then again, you couldn't do that to a dog. If anyone gets a whiff that someone used physical punishment to train a dog people flip out. So what is the deal? Kids don't get treated as well as dogs? What is the reasoning?

I think it's the same reasoning as when people flipped out a gorilla was killed to save a kid. Some people seem to be more worried about animals than people.

 

But yes- people do flip out about animals, and I think a lot of it is simple ignorance. They think animals think like people which I completely disagree with. They think like whichever animal they are. I'm not saying they don't have feelings. They do- but try explaining logic to a spooked horse, you know? It doesn't work.

[Murphy101]

OK, super late to the party. I actually bought the Godly tomatoes book years ago. (yes, I know. Embarrassing.)

 

I ended up recycling it, as there was a lot that was troubling to me, but the one thing I took from the book that I actually think can work was the idea of tomato staking. Basically, instead of banishing a kid to time out land in his room, you keep a kid who is not behaving well close to you. This kind of fits in with the Ross Green "Kids do as well as they can" type philosophy in that I really don't think that kids want to be bad. So if Child X is getting into trouble, by keeping him or her near me, I can usually figure out what was going on (hungry, tired, need more attention, sibling issue, etc.) Of course, in being honest, sometimes I want the break.... I really don't want to figure out why... and so it's actually far easier for me to say "go to your room". ;)

I think that's how it's supposed to be. It's unrealistic for a parent to be forever staking. And if they were forever staking, then I'd question whether the staking was working. Just like a spanking is fine, but if they are always spanking, then spanking would be perceived by me as to not be effective. Same goes for sending them to their room too though. If I reached a point where it seemed the kid might as well never leave their room bc they are just going to end up sent back - to me, obviously I need to delve deeper into what is going on and decide upon a more effective tactic.

 

Like you, I've had nuggets of parental lightbulb moments over the years.

 

One for me, and I have no idea where I got it from bc I think it was over a decade or more ago, was that practice is a natural consequence.

 

A child who for example pitches a fit over doing their chore or school work and in angst decides to do a sloppy job of it, instead of lambasting them, just calmly look over the work noting they seem to need to practice this skill to get better at it.

 

Dh and I were discussing this on the phone last night. I sent a couple of our kids over to mow a grandparent's property. Grandparent paid them for it, which dh and I both thought was odd, but whatever. Dh said he didn't get paid for doing a good job, he just got grounded if he did a bad job. And we joked we didn't pay or ground our kids. In fact, we have never grounded any of our kids yet in 22 years of parenting. They mow the yard bc they live here and everyone has chores. If they do a crummy job, I assume they need practice and send them back out to do the job properly.

[Bluegoat]

Because the thing is, when you think something is an acceptable tool, you use it; it isn't in your mental category of "Things I Must Never Do," so it remains an option. If it remains an option, there is not a mental barrier to doing it. I believe that the world would be a better place if the "tool" of hitting was simply not there. We know that it is possible to raise and influence children without hitting, because there are many situations where hitting IS NOT A TOOL that is possible. 

 

The reason I see parallels to how adults interact is because, as I said before, there was once a time when nations as a whole sanctioned the "right" of adults (usually white male adults) to hit other adults over which they had power. They could hit their domestic servants, their slaves, their wives, their adult female children, their children, their horses and their dog with impunity, as long as they did it "correctly"; this is where the idiomatic expression "Rule of Thumb" comes from. You can switch your wife or servant as long as the "rod" was no bigger in circumference than your thumb. So there was a time in the public consciousness when some women or servants or whatever simply "had" to be struck in order to do as they were told. I am saying I would like to see a time when this is not believed of *anyone* else; why should children be denied this basic protection against harm? 

 

It is NOT that I think any swat on the butt is abuse. I don't. If that were true, than I have abused my kids. But we KNOW in society that it is not *necessary* to strike children to teach them and many studies indicate that children behave worse when hit. Therefore, it is a fantasy of mine that we as a society would realize that this is a "tool" that is obsolete and unnecessary. That it would go into that mental category of Things I Must Never Do. 

 

I think you could probably say any particular tools are not necessary, as in we could get along without them.  Time outs are something people can and do  without, in some places they would be very inconvenient or impossible.  If we got rid of them, as Things We Should Never Do - as some think we should - we could use other tools.  And lots of tools are abusive if misused, including just talking.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

There are more and more studies showing that spanking has life long negative consequences.

 

It's time to find a new parenting tool.

[MercyA]

I never rocked my babies to sleep because I never had a desire to...

 

Don't feel sorry for me. I've held tons of sleeping babies - mine and others. Just not when I could be doing something else and they could be in bed.

 

Just saying... :leaving: :D

 

Truth.  ;)

[Joker]

I was spanked growing up and have no issues with it. Neither do my siblings. It wasn't done often but it was done. 

 

That said, I don't spank. Dh was never spanked growing up but we did spank oldest once or twice and decided that wasn't for us. We found other ways to get the same results. My parents could have done the same but parented mostly how they had been parented, except they were spanked worse and more often. So, they changed a bit for the better and then I did the same to completely do away with spanking. 

[Murphy101]

There are more and more studies showing that spanking has life long negative consequences.

 

It's time to find a new parenting tool.

I no longer give any credence to parenting experts, whether they be quoting ATI or studies.

 

If someone else finds it insightfully helpful with their own child, that's fine by me too.

[SeaConquest]

I spent nearly 15 years helping parents (and kids) heal from the kind of parenting we've been discussing here lately (the same conversation we have periodically.)

 

It is a damaging and developmentally ignorant paradigm.

 

We can not punish maturity into a child (or any human for that matter.) We can not spank or time out or remove consequences "enough" to accelerate developmental maturity.

 

And, when I was a Christian, I balked strongly at the implied correlation that proper discipline as prescribed by punitive minded Christian parenting gurus would somehow give my kid greater immunity from ungodliness of greater chances of liberating Christian submission to God. There are some good Christian parenting authors "out there."

 

I am particularly vexed when someone suggests we "take what works" from these authors and leave the rest. That is true to some extent from some authors but in will not endorse sifting through abuse for material that is found in common sense or other books that don't also support abuse or an adversarial parenting paradigm.

 

I haven't read this entire thread; not sure I have the stomach to do so, to be honest, as I find it incredibly painful. But, I feel compelled to share that, after I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, I spent 6 months in an intensive mental health program at Thalians, the psychiatric hospital at Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles. 6 months is a long time to be in a program; and during that time, I watched hundreds of people cycle in and out of the program. People came from all over the country (and world), as the program was extremely well regarded. I listened to these people's stories, day in and day out during our group therapy sessions. Mind you, these were people with the most severe kinds of mental health issues -- severe depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, borderline, etc., the vast majority of whom had attempted suicide (often several times) and/or had tried to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol.

 

If you were to write a book to describe the childhoods that these people generally had in common, it would certainly include the type of "techniques" described in this thread. Now, I am not claiming that any specific parenting style is a recipe for mental illness -- people are far too complex to say that if you input X parenting style, you will get Y mental illness. But, if you have a child with a genetic predisposition for mental illness, and you are following these types of strategies, my opinion is that you are jeopardizing your child's mental health.  

 

Subsequent to my stay at Thalians, I spent much of the past decade in therapy, and in various other mental health programs, learning strategies to manage my illness. Moreover, now that I have children myself, I am mindful of their genetic predisposition for similar mental health issues. I have therefore spent a great deal of time reading and researching these issues. With all of that in mind, I have never met a single psychiatrist who recommended the parenting techniques described in RGT.

 

I don't mean to sound hyperbolical; I am mostly of the mindset that the single most important decision we make as parents is who we choose as our partner. Twin studies have generally demonstrated that parenting (nurture) matters less than our genetics (nature), especially in the long run. But, many genes do seem to depend on the environment to be triggered, meaning that nurture may determine how nature is expressed. I believe that is often the case with mental illnesses. With that in mind, I would think long and hard about parenting a la RGT or the Pearls, most especially if you have a family history of mental illness. 

[Tanaqui]

I was spanked growing up and have no issues with it. Neither do my siblings. It wasn't done often but it was done.

 

You don't know that. You can't turn back the clock, and have your parents raise you and your siblings without spanking, and see how you turned out.

 

All we know is that study after study shows that children who were spanked are more likely to grow up with a host of problems. This doesn't predict the behavior of any individual child, but it certainly paints a picture.

[Joker]

You don't know that. You can't turn back the clock, and have your parents raise you and your siblings without spanking, and see how you turned out.

 

All we know is that study after study shows that children who were spanked are more likely to grow up with a host of problems. This doesn't predict the behavior of any individual child, but it certainly paints a picture.

I don't know that we don't have problems? None of us have ever had issues with drugs or alcohol. We're all college educated and have all had healthy long term relationships. All of us are married (all in first marriages ranging from 18-20+ years). All are successful in careers or being stay home parents. I'm the only one that's been treated for any mental health issues and that was for depression right after losing my dad in a car accident.

 

I don't think spanking is necessary for any but I don't at all agree that it causes problems for all who are spanked. I stand by my statement that we we have no issues. I chose not to spank my own children but all of my siblings haven't made the same decision. Their children are doing as well as my own.

[Tanaqui]

I don't know that we don't have problems? None of us have ever had issues with drugs or alcohol. We're all college educated and have all had healthy long term relationships. All of us are married (all in first marriages ranging from 18-20+ years). All are successful in careers or being stay home parents. I'm the only one that's been treated for any mental health issues and that was for depression right after losing my dad in a car accident.

 

And maybe you have problems that are low-lying and borderline that you think are normal because you have no basis of comparison.

 

You can't know how you would have turned out if your parents had made different choices. All we can do is look at the science.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Tanaqui

[SeaConquest]

I don't know that we don't have problems? None of us have ever had issues with drugs or alcohol. We're all college educated and have all had healthy long term relationships. All of us are married (all in first marriages ranging from 18-20+ years). All are successful in careers or being stay home parents. I'm the only one that's been treated for any mental health issues and that was for depression right after losing my dad in a car accident.

 

I don't think spanking is necessary for any but I don't at all agree that it causes problems for all who are spanked. I stand by my statement that we we have no issues. I chose not to spank my own children but all of my siblings haven't made the same decision. Their children are doing as well as my own.

 

My anecdotal evidence is quite the contrary. Both my sister and I were spanked, in the normal, infrequent sense of the word. We both have severe mental illnesses. 

 

Anecdotes don't matter; 5 decades of research does. 

 

http://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers

 

AUSTIN, Texas Â­ — The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research on spanking by experts at The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan.

 

The study, published in this month’s Journal of Family Psychology, looks at five decades of research involving over 160,000 children. The researchers say it is the most complete analysis to date of the outcomes associated with spanking, and more specific to the effects of spanking alone than previous papers, which included other types of physical punishment in their analyses.

 

“Our analysis focuses on what most Americans would recognize as spanking and not on potentially abusive behaviors,†says Elizabeth Gershoff, an associate professor of human development and family sciences at The University of Texas at Austin. â€œWe found that spanking was associated with unintended detrimental outcomes and was not associated with more immediate or long-term compliance, which are parents’ intended outcomes when they discipline their children.â€

 

Gershoff and co-author Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work, found that spanking (defined as an open-handed hit on the behind or extremities) was significantly linked with 13 of the 17 outcomes they examined, all in the direction of detrimental outcomes.

 

“The upshot of the study is that spanking increases the likelihood of a wide variety of undesired outcomes for children. Spanking thus does the opposite of what parents usually want it to do,†Grogan-Kaylor says.

 

Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor tested for some long-term effects among adults who were spanked as children. The more they were spanked, the more likely they were to exhibit anti-social behavior and to experience mental health problems. They were also more likely to support physical punishment for their own children, which highlights one of the key ways that attitudes toward physical punishment are passed from generation to generation.

 

The researchers looked at a wide range of studies and noted that spanking was associated with negative outcomes consistently and across all types of studies, including those using the strongest methodologies such as longitudinal or experimental designs. As many as 80 percent of parents around the world spank their children, according to a 2014 UNICEF report. Gershoff notes that this persistence of spanking is in spite of the fact that there is no clear evidence of positive effects from spanking and ample evidence that it poses a risk of harm to children’s behavior and development.

 

Both spanking and physical abuse were associated with the same detrimental child outcomes in the same direction and nearly the same strength.

 

“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,†she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.â€

 

Gershoff also noted that the study results are consistent with a report released recently by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that called for “public engagement and education campaigns and legislative approaches to reduce corporal punishment,†including spanking, as a means of reducing physical child abuse. “We hope that our study can help educate parents about the potential harms of spanking and prompt them to try positive and non-punitive forms of discipline.†

Edited June 28, 2016 by SeaConquest

[Murphy101]

And maybe you have problems that are low-lying and borderline that you think are normal because you have no basis of comparison.

 

You can't know how you would have turned out if your parents had made different choices. All we can do is look at the science.

And hundreds to thousands of years of society not collapsing or perishing bc generations where ruined by spanking.

 

There's a reason psychology is called a soft science.

[SeaConquest]

And hundreds to thousands of years of society not collapsing or perishing bc generations where ruined by spanking.

 

There's a reason psychology is called a soft science.

 

And for thousands of years, human society looked like an episode of Game of Thrones (and still does, sadly, in much of the world). Is that really what we are aspiring to, as a species?

[SeaConquest]

You know, this constant refrain that "spanking is no big deal," despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary looks a lot like the stuff tobacco execs used to say. The world would be a much better place if people were less defensive about their choices, and instead adopted "when you know better, you do better" as their mantra.

Edited June 28, 2016 by SeaConquest

[LucyStoner]

The many larger studies are not arguing that spanking leads to anything approaching societal collapse. They are documenting a connection between a form of discipline and certain outcomes. Beyond psychology, the growing body of research on how stress hormones impact gene expression is a fairly interesting topic.

[Tanaqui]

You know, this constant refrain that "spanking is no big deal," despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary looks a lot like the stuff tobacco execs used to say. The world would be a much better place if people were less defensive about their choices, and instead adopted "when you know better, you do better" as their mantra.

 

The thing is, usually any criticism of spanking doesn't just read as "you're a bad parent" but "and so were your mom and dad". People don't like to hear that, which is why you'll see people who were really, 100% abused - like, broken bottles thrown at them and beaten with sticks until bloody and all - who will claim their parents "loved them" and "had to be a little tough". And if your parents weren't clearly, unambiguously abusive, it's even harder. Close to impossible if other people in your community spanked. Then it's "and by the way, your entire culture is stupid" on top of you and your parents. I mean, it's not, but that's what people seem to hear.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Joker]

I've already stated one should do better when they know better. It's why dh and I don't spank. I've also stated that my parents didn't need to spank and could have done better.

 

I'm also stating that being spanked while growing up did not cause issues with us. I hear you that it does with some, maybe even most, but it's not factual that it does with all.

[8circles]

The thing is, usually any criticism of spanking doesn't just read as "you're a bad parent" but "and so were your mom and dad". People don't like to hear that, which is why you'll see people who were really, 100% abused - like, broken bottles thrown at them and beaten with sticks until bloody and all - who will claim their parents "loved them" and "had to be a little tough". And if your parents weren't clearly, unambiguously abusive, it's even harder. Close to impossible if other people in your community spanked. Then it's "and by the way, your entire culture is stupid" on top of you and your parents. I mean, it's not, but that's what people seem to hear.

Yes, this.

 

I used to be someone who said I was spanked and it didn't harm me, my parents loved me and did what needed to be done. I was lying. Not on purpose, but I was in denial.

 

That doesn't mean I think everyone who says that is in denial, I just don't find it convincing. Because I know that my situation isn't unique.