The naughty-step "will raise a generation of disturbed children"

[10miles]

This is from my Dad. He feels, very strongly, that a time out punishment system is effectively telling DC that they're so awful you can't bear to have them near you and will lead to emotional problems and poor family relationships.

My parents were very loving, but also very firm with us. We were smacked when we needed disciplining, but never ever sent to our rooms/the step. Dad feels a short sharp smack that is quickly forgotten is far kinder than banishment. What do you think. (He is not in anyway advocating hard physical punishment, this was a slap of the wrist, legs or bottom depending on age, never leaving a mark)

I kind of agree with that.

It seems to me to be a withdrawal of love - kids wnt attention more than anything else, so withdrawing it may be, to them, like withdrawing love in a way.

I'm not anti smacking either. A non hurting light smack is a physical expression of displeasure, like a hug is a physical expression of approval.

I think 'smacking only teaches them to smack' has become a bit of a cliche. People trot it out - I'm not saying they are wrong - but it can be a bit thoughtless.

To me 'legitimate authority' is at the heart of it. I have that over my dc, as do all parents. Of course I can be trusted to use it wisely and with love, but what about those that can't/won 't? It's tricky

Should say my dc are only very young yet and not at the stage of needing discipline. So I am still formulating my approach for when I need it.

Oh, smacking really does teach children to smack santa. I know this because when my children were very small (non verbal) I used to slap hands for touching dangerous things, until the day DS2 crawled towards the oven and DS1 (3yo) said "don't worry Mummy, I'll smack him" Haven't smacked either of them since, but am not convinced other methods are any better.

Yes, santa, I agree about the legitimate authority, but if it can be abused by over zealous smacking, it can be abused by over zealous shutting in rooms etc and who's to say which is most harmful long term?

My Mother said the same thing to me. I think she may well be right. Although is it any worse than 'go to your room'? (I think go to your room may have been for older chidlren in my day, though, not toddlers.)

No, edam, my Dad's theory covers go to your room too - it was never used against us.

A lot depends on the circumstances and how it's done, but I always think that making a child feel isolated probably isn't going to improve its behaviour.

I prefer the notion of time out step than naughty step, to give the child a chance to calm down away from the scene of the upset. It's not to do with "can't bear to be near you" (although, there are probably times that is probably true, on very bad days!) but for the most part it is to allow children a chance to "re-set". Don't we feel better once we have cooled off, as adults? The difference is that children aren't able to self-regulate like that, so we can help them do it via the time out step.

As for smacking. I TOTALLY AND UTTERLY resented my mum for the smacks she doled out, even I could tell it was lazy parenting and mostly because she wanted to give in to that urge to smack, nothing to do with teaching me a lesson. Even short sharp smacks are not quickly forgotten. They can create a lifetime of resentment too.

It is more to do with the attitude behind whatever form of discipline is used.

Time out gives the parent time to calm down too, 10miles. At one point my dd was having 5 or 6 major tantrums a day. The only way to deal with it was time out - I could have completely lost it otherwise as I also had a baby and a toddler to deal with.

As long as the child has a hug and there are apologies from both sides afterwards, what's the problem? Surely time out is better than a smack?

Watching with interest. DS is only 12 months, so way too young to discipline. However I can see some early tantrums and I have no idea how to deal with these when the time comes. I want him to feel loved no matter what, and I will never withdraw that from him, but at the same time I know it?s very healthy for their development to have boundaries.

I thought the naughty step was different to time out, and that naughty step is more like a punishment, whereas time out is giving them the chance to get their feelings under control? I don?t know if I?m explaining this properly, but I was under the impression time out is preferable to the naughty step?

I don?t agree with smacking, I think it?s confusing for children, after all we want them to copy our behavior (eat, brush their teeth, etc) but then show them not everything we do is acceptable?

Interesting question. I think it's all about how you discipline, rather than the actual discipline itself. If you discipline inconsistently with anger, blaming and shouting, that will be damaging to the child IMO. For example a friend of mine sets very few boundaries for her DD, lets some really bad behaviour go, and then jumps on her for other things, shouting and telling her that she is "making mummy sad." IMO that is really scary and unpredictable for the child, and likely to make them anxious and more prone to erratic bad behaviour. My friend's DD is a lovely, bright child, but she can all of sudden turn very nasty and I do think that is because my friend doesn't really guide her at all, she just blows up at her periodically.

WRT time out, I do think it can be damaging if it's used too frequently or in a really punitive way. The idea of a time out is that it is used for properly dangerous, serious behaviour where the child needs to be removed from the situation and given a chance to calm down.

IME actual discipline is only necessary in situations where the parents have so far not been consistent with their children. I think for most children (barring a few who really are live wires and need constant correcting) if you are very very clear right from the beginning what is acceptable and what's not, if you ensure that you don't allow your children to ignore what you say and if you guide your children carefully in new situations (while allowing them to make a few mistakes) then formal, punishment-type discipline isn't really necessary. You have to be realistic about what you expect a child to do and be forgiving of genuine mistakes and of bad behaviour that's due to tiredness or hunger.

My parents rarely disciplined us, and I think that was because we felt very secure and knew what they wanted at all times.

FWIW I would never smack.

I'm glad it's not an either/or situation. I wouldn't use time out or smacking. Neither one sits right with me. I don't think you can state causal relationships so reductively however.

Time out is not intended to isolate the child. The child should never be out of your sight in a time out. They should just sit and calm down, the idea being that they're given a chance to move away from an overwhelming situation before their behaviour gets out of control.

I don't agree with smacking either. But I do think that you have to be careful not to instil a sense of alienation and resentment, and hence self justification for bad behaviour, when you isolate a child. Better probably to explain clearly why you aren't happy with their behaviour and what they can do to make amends. (Though obviously that's easier said than done in a lot of cases...)

I think banishing children because their behaviour is unacceptable teaches them that if they want to be accepted by anyone (family, society, friends) they have to act in an acceptable manner. I have no problems with the "naughty" step.

I do however, just call it "the step" as I don't like the labelling of naughty. Although it's only towards the behaviour, it's easy for that label to slip onto the child.

That's very idealist cailin. Children aren't like dogs - they do push boundaries even if the parent has been consistent.

IME "bad" behaviour usually has a cause. Just punishing randomly without thinking about why the child behaved that way is pointless because chances are the punishment won't work and you're going to keep having to punish over and over. The idea with punishment is that if you have to do it more than say 5 times for the same behaviour then it's just not working, the child isn't learning from it and you need to do something else.

Smacking is pointless IMO - it teaches nothing.

And like most parents, I'm only human - I get tired, stressed, emotional. Sometimes it's hard for a child to always know what a parent wants.

I totally agree Moogalicious - but you need to think about why they're pushing a particular boundary.

I also agree that it's hard for a child to know what a parents wants, and I would say in that case you give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're tired and stressed, chances are the child is too, so just give them a break.

My point is, sometimes it's hard to be objective in the heat of the moment. Time out can give both parties time to think.

In my book, the only behaviours from a child that always warrant some sort of punishment are violent behaviours. A child needs to be taught very clearly that no matter what, no matter how they feel they can't hurt someone else.

That's part of the reason I don't smack.