To discipline thus means to instruct a person or animal to follow a particular code of conduct, or to adhere to a certain “order.” Consequently, “in the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of modeling character and of teaching self-control and acceptable behavior.”[2] So for example, to discipline a child to wash its hands before meals. Here, ‘washing hands before meals’ is a particular pattern of behaviour, and the child is being disciplined to adopt that pattern. [...] Usually however, the phrase ‘to discipline’ carries a negative connotation. This is because enforcement of order - that is, ensuring instructions are carried out - is often regulated through punishment.cf. [4]

To be disciplined is then, subject to context, either a virtue (the ability to follow instructions well) or a euphemism for punishment (which may also be referred to as disciplinary procedure).

Disciplined defined narrowly - that is synonymously with “punishment” - is not enough on its own. Such a definition cheapens the word.

What I think you are missing is that these are elements of positive discipline - they are not suggested as tools for negative reinforcement.

Not to be nitpicky, but that’s positive reinforcement. Discipline is punishment, other definitions are ancilliary. And, you can have the last word on that as I’ll drop it as I finish this sentence.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do, and that those were things taht I’d get “whooped” for if my dad found out. But I did them anyway and did my best not to get caught.

Obviously you weren’t whooped as hard as I was. LOL!

“Whoopings” taught me how to cower in fear and comply in certain situations, and they taught me to be very underhanded, sneaky, and dishonest.

Aren’t you rationalizing a wee bit? If you KNEW you were doing something wrong (and when you disobey a parent, you know you’re doing something wrong) and you did it anyway, isn’t it a bit of a cop-out to blame the whooping you thought you’d get? How did a whooping make you be underhanded? It was your choice to be underhanded. It was your choice to be sneaky. It was your choice to be dishonest. It had nothing to do with the whooping as that would be the result of unacceptable behavior. You did all those things in order to avoid that prescribed punishment, did you not? Much like a criminal will flee from the cops because he knows if he gets caught that he’ll likely be sent to prison. Hey, it’s not the jail’s fault he broke the law.

Come on, ‘fess up.

I’ll end with this: obviously corporal punishment isn’t for you. I know of several families that overuse it, but that’s my personal opinion. I know of a few, and one in particular, that underuse it and that will most certainly harm the kid because he’s going to have a rude awakening when his spoiled @#$ gets to school and finds out that other children won’t cuddle him like mama did and that there will be actual consequences that occur when you act like a spoiled brat, as opposed to home, where pitching a fit means mama will give you whatever you want in order to make you stop crying. A few raps on his rear end - beginning about two years ago - would’ve put that kid in the proper direction a lot sooner and he’d be less apt to have his world turned upside down as is about to happen in the very near future: bullies suck, but they really hate spoiled mama’s boys who think they can get their way. Life’s about to smack a little boy in such a way that’d make a few spankings seem like rock, paper, scissors.

I bet in the last 3 years I’ve doled out as many spankings as I could count on my hands; they’re that rare. However, when I did give them spankings, they were for especially egregious behavior and even worse attitudes when they were confronted with their actions as they were defiant. Thus, I “brought the hammer down”. Since then, I need only hint of a spanking and they’ll acquiesce, as they know what’s in store. Personal admission: I’ve doled out a few (maybe 3) one-time swats in the last few months because the kids deserved a spanking, but instead I popped them hard enough on their behinds that a gnat would easily survive. The last spankings - real ones - in mid ‘07, I suppose, were pretty brutal on my psyche, as well. It truly did hurt me more than it hurt them, as I had to go into my room and weep with each instance. I recall that each time I’ve had to swat them, since (again, maybe all of 3 times….the spankings did work) and so I’m left a pushover to the point that my wife asked me if I even made contact with my daughter’s rear on the last attempt. Looking back, if I had to do it all over again, I most certainly would. I believe I did the right thing in teaching them that defiant behavior to THAT DEGREE is unacceptable (let’s face it, all kids continuously attempt to see how far they can go) and if the situation arises, the hammer will once again drop. But, buddy, and I surely won’t let them know it, but I’d sooner put my testicles in a vice than to be confronted with that situation again.

h sofia, it was a pleasure debating with you. I respect both of your opinions as you & smijer presented your arguments very well. We may not agree, but that’s not really all that important in the grand scheme of things. I mean, heck, we already had our positions staked out when we first started commenting here….I hope I’ve explained my stance as well as you guys explained yours.

And, I’m spent.

If/when I come across that evidence, I might change my mind about the necessity and long term effectiveness of corporal punishment in leading children to engage healthily and peaceably with one another, and society as a whole.

Maybe I’m missing something - and lord knows I can be dense - but if little Johnny flips his teacher the bird,…

What I think you are missing is that these are elements of positive discipline - they are not suggested as tools for negative reinforcement. IOW - no - these aren’t tools for reacting to bad behavior - they are tools for teaching good behavior. I believe that discipline should have a larger component of proactivity and positive reinforcement, and a smaller component of reactivity and negative reinforcement.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do because if my dad found out I wouldn’t get spanked, I’d get “whooped”. For me, the threat of corporal punishment was numero uno in maintaining my behavior.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do, and that those were things taht I’d get “whooped” for if my dad found out. But I did them anyway and did my best not to get caught. “Whoopings” taught me how to cower in fear and comply in certain situations, and they taught me to be very underhanded, sneaky, and dishonest. I honestly can’t think of anything positive I learned from corporal punishment.

It is a problem, but it is not the norm.

How many schools had metal detectors in the 50s? 60s? Back when guns were even EASIER to get? No, it’s not the norm, but it’s no longer as extraordinary to hear about gang violence at schools, pregnant 14 year olds (granted, folks got married a lot younger back then) or an overall rate of erratic behavior among kids.

Without any substantive evidence, one could just as easily say the Civil Rights movement is the reason kids misbehave in school today, or hormones in McDonald’s patties, or television.

Sure, you could say it, but do you think you’d get as many people to agree with you? Would one really posit the notion that the civil rights act is a cause of needing metal detectors in schools as opposed to removing corporal punishment as a more likely item? Not saying it’s the true cause, but it’s definitely something that belongs near the top of the list. And, can we agree that “bad parenting” is a throwaway line that can be used as an excuse for almost anything? I mean, there were bad parents in the 50s & 60s, as well, back when men slapping around their wives was sometimes accepted.

Heaven help those who think it is the end all and be all of raising a law abiding child.

We are in 100% agreement on that.

Well, so am I - these are things that are learned by modeling, and teaching them by modeling those behaviors is discipline.

Maybe I’m missing something - and lord knows I can be dense - but if little Johnny flips his teacher the bird, I don’t see how telling him that you love him is disciplining him. Otherwise, one could say that ANY action that could be construed as ‘teaching’ is disciplining them. “Honey, Johnny flipped off the teacher today. So, I disciplined him.” “How?” “We started a coin collection.” Hey, you’re teaching them something (in a weird sort of way). Can’t see how saying “I love you” after a kid commits an act that you deem unacceptable to be “discipline” but I could be wrong. It just seems sorta “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” to me, kind of a way to wrap one’s self into a pretzel and say that you disciplined. Oh, well.

The idea, from my standpoint, is for immediate compliance “because I said so” for the time being & voluntary compliance when they’re able to discern right & wrong on their own and to blend in with what society deems acceptable via their own free will. After all, aren’t we as parents primarily guiding them toward adulthood along the way?

If a 3 yr old boy hits a 1 year old that takes his toy, there are many different ways to get across to him that it’s not acceptable for him to hit the 1 year old. I’m not sure how saying “I love you” or admitting to the 3 yr old that you’re wrong about something are items that I’d put near the top of my “most likely to succeed” list. But, that’s just me.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do because if my dad found out I wouldn’t get spanked, I’d get “whooped”. For me, the threat of corporal punishment was numero uno in maintaining my behavior.

Sitting me down & talking to me, instead? Throw me into that briar patch, bre’er rabbit.

No, I’m not saying they are the same. Granted, I wasn’t in high school in the 1950s, but from what my grandmother (who graduated h.s. in 1949) says, No. But - a LOT of things were different in the 1950s, not just whether most parents or schools instituted corporal punishment. Without any substantive evidence, one could just as easily say the Civil Rights movement is the reason kids misbehave in school today, or hormones in McDonald’s patties, or television.

(As an aside, I disagree with you that violence is “no longer the exception” in schools. It is a problem, but it is not the norm. See this link for more info; one note is that in 96-97 school year, 10 percent of all public schools reported one or more violent crime.)

I’m more inclined to think kids are mirroring the adults in their lives when they act up at school (or anywhere) - they may be reflecting cynicism, frustration, alcohol and drug abuse, dehumanization, consumerism, and an inability to communicate non-violently. Also, taking into account that such things as domestic violence and child abuse appear to have an exponential effect, it doesn’t surprise me that we are seeing more aggressive or disturbing behavior in children than in decades past.

We also have better mechanisms for measuring these things, and more publicity around them. If some kid in Michigan beats another student to death, I’ll hear about it here in Oregon, and my brain receives that information pretty much the same as if it happened fifty miles away. Thirty years ago I probably would never have heard of it; and ignorance is bliss.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that I don’t think there is ANY evidence whatsoever to suggest that less corporal punishment is the cause of any of our youth’s social ills. Now, the cause may be due in part to lack of discipline in the home (and by the parents themselves), and lack of *actual parenting* - but spanking is hardly synonymous with discipline and parenting. It is just one approach that many parents use. Heaven help those who think it is the end all and be all of raising a law abiding child.

I’m talking VERB, not noun.

Well, so am I - these are things that are learned by modeling, and teaching them by modeling those behaviors is discipline.

Anecdotal, sure. You don’t argue against 100%, though, do you? And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?

Near 100% for in a lot of cases for getting immediate compliance. Immediate compliance, gotten by force, may or may not contribute to “discipline” - which is an internalized set of attitudes and behaviors that remain in effect when immediate threats of force are not active.

it’s a fallacy to say that spanking “doesn’t work” when most people realize that it does.

That’s the fallacy of conventional wisdom. There are cases when most people “realize” that a common and ineffective remedy is effective. Most people “realize” that therimosal in vaccines causes autism, but they are most likely incorrect in that realization.

And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?

I don’t know if this was for me or for h sofia. I tried to make clear when I posted this entry that I would never admonish or shame other parents for doing the best thing they knew how to do to effectively teach their children how to live in this crazy world. As long as the intention is loving correction and the result isn’t significant harm to the child, there is nothing there for me to shame. We harm our kids in small (and sometimes big) ways every day, whether we mean to or not, and we don’t expect to be shamed and admonished for our failings if they are not intentional and if they don’t directly cause significant harm. That same standard applies in the area of coercive discipline.

Do you have some non-anecdotal evidence that the kids who speak disrespectfully of women are the ones who don’t get spanked?

Not just speaking disrespectfully, but the entire coarseness of the culture in places like high schools. Are you really saying that the conduct of high school students is similar to that of the conduct of students during the time when corporal punishment was the norm at public schools? Now, if you say that there’s no direct correlation between dropping paddling & kids acting like punks nowadays, I may or may not disagree; if it has no effect, though, what HAS changed in society to the point that violence in schools is no longer the exception (assuming you don’t think that they’re similar, although if you do think it’s the same as the 50s I’ll be both shocked and floored)?

Admitting that you’re wrong and respecting people are both disciplines that should be learned. Discipline mainly means adherence to a defined standard, despite impulses to do the contrary.

We’re arguing semantics or context: If your kid does something wrong & you tell them that you love them or that you were wrong in how you handled things, you didn’t discipline them. I’m talking VERB, not noun.

Trust me, I’m not saying that teachers should be out there with belts laying the smack down on some kid who is chomping on some gum. I’m just saying that a parent who uses corporal punishment as a tool shouldn’t be looked upon with any sort of condescention, IMO (of course, exempting cases of abuse….that goes w/o saying/typing) as it’s a fallacy to say that spanking “doesn’t work” when most people realize that it does. The caveat is that, with pretty much everything, it doesn’t work in all instances. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option. Sure, there are some 14 yr olds who won’t change a thing after they’ve been spanked, but there are plenty who WILL *if* they think the spanking will be enough negative reinforcement and is doled out in a consistent manner so that they know if they do X again, they’ll receive some pain to their rear end. If the threat of physical pain is real, then the overwhelming majority of the time the person will adhere.

If someone KNEW that Shaquille O’Neal was serious when he told them that they’d better not take a picture of him as he dined or else he’d smack them around, I guarantee you that they’d set aside their right to the freedom to take a picture in public at their leisure and adhere to his demand.

A trouble-making kid who doesn’t care about their grades and doesn’t care about attending school is less apt to be bothered by a school suspension. You tend to get what you tolerate.

Currently, one of the options for punishment for our kids is taking away their time on the computer. Well, when they’re not in the mood to play on the computer, they don’t care if it’s taken away, so they’re less likely to adhere…..if I threaten a spanking, I’m currently getting 100% compliance. Granted, I’m careful to not overuse that threat, but it’s hard to argue 100% compliance from a 10 yr old girl and an 8 yr old boy who is a high-functioning autistic child (thus he REALLY understands that B can come from A, so he knows that A had better not occur in those cases).

Anecdotal, sure. You don’t argue against 100%, though, do you? And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?