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)

For what's it worth, I think having children is very much like owning dogs...praise wanted behaviours, redirect unwanted behaviours and make it very clear when something is unaccaptable.

They both go through a rebellious phase, the main difference really is that you give longer commands to children, lol.

tootired most tantrums in children who are very young are caused by frustration, not by 'naughtiness'. When you remove the word 'tantrum' and put in the word 'frustration' it becomes easier to understand how best to deal with them. Children pick up their emotional cues from the adults around them - if you are calm your child will automatically fall into line with your calmness. Even in adults around 90% of communication is non-verbal, for children who have fewer language skills it's even more. I'm of the opinion that humans are particularly good at picking up on other humans emitting the stress hormone.

There is a brief period at the start of any tantrum/episode where the child is not picking up external cues - it's important to remember their brains don't work as quickly as an adults so it takes a few seconds for them to be in a position to pick up your signals. It's also definitely not about squashing emotions or free-spirit, it's about saying/demonstrating "I understand you're upset and frustrated, but this is how we behave, and this is how we get back to an even keel".

I think that telling anyone that their behaviour is not good enough to be allowed to participate in a group setting is an excellent way of instilling the message that civilised behaviour is a necessity if you want to get on in life.

We must all be disturbed then, as Time Out's always been in operation, it's just when I was young it involved getting sent to your room

We were given 'time out' when young. If we were naughty we had to sit at the table. I have a lovely relationship with my mum and didn't do me any harm at all. I think there is way to much worry about damaging your children now adays. I think unless you beat, neglect or abuse them and as long as you are loving and talk to them and explain things the method you use doesn't really matter as long as it works for you.

I ended the naughty step the day i found myself perching a 3 month old there to pacify the two year old she had just 'kicked'

Disagree. Think your fathers comments are ridiculous.

I think smacking is disgusting. In what way is it not a withdrawal of love?

If my friend were upsetting me etc the natural thing would be to have time away from each other - not to smack her/him to get my point across.

Also, ' a quick smack is quickly forgotten' - huh? By who?

I think your dad is unsettled and can't think that maybe there were other ways to discipline his kids than smacking them.

My parents smacked us, maybe max of 5 times I can remember. They totally agree now that smacking is wrong.

it's an odd either-or...

personally i think whatever discipline works for you and your family within reason is fine.

ultimately you have to something to correct bad behaviour, and what that is will depend on the child and the situation.

a talking-to is sometimes enough (particularly with older kids) with a toddler the aim to me is just to get them to stop whatever it was, (too young to reason with them!) ...so time out of some kind fine. Isn't it 86% of adults that think their mothers did a good job? plenty of scope for different approaches there.

phrases like 'disturbed' need to be kept for genuine abuse, the ops dad needs a sense of perspective.

Totally agree with EAPoe here. That sounds right on to me.

I have been a massive failure as a mother, what with PND and then Anxiety and a raft of other boring MH issues. I have disappointed myself hugely and have to accept that some of my 'parenting' (shouting, the occasional smack, time out, inconsistency...) has more than likely damaged my children. So far, they seem remarkably well-adjusted at 6 and 3 years but I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for them to reveal that I have 'fucked them up' as Phillip Larkin might say. They DO know they are loved though and they love me too so that means a lot to me.

What I am trying to say, I suppose, is that everyone one this thread seems to be parenting very mindfully, whatever the methods involved, so I'm sure their children will be just grand.

I do that too notyet. In my case, the alternative is too disturbing for a child to witness.

Shouting, loosing it, frustration, being less than perfect - infact being quite shite as a parent - yep I'm sure we've all been there.

But the thread is about whether 'naughty step' which really means 'time out' is not as bad as a quick forgotten smack.

Its a silly argument than one is purely physical with no effect and one is emotional.

Regardless of how you want to dress it up - smacking is physical punishment - and a very confusing/shocking one for a small child to experience.

Surely if it were a terrifically successful technique then schools would still be using it? Or indeed we wouldn't mind anyone administering it?

I agree with your dad about smacking, tbh, at least sometimes. I had a long conversation with DD once where she agreed with me, too. She finds the idea of smacking extremely shocking, but still far prefers it to the many other sanctions I might have threatened or imposed.

I agree that if smacking has no effect then there's no point in doing it, too! Next debate is whether it ever works....

I don't understand smacking at all. We spend our whole time telling children not to hit out; that violence is wrong; that there are better ways of resolving conflict. But apparently, sometimes there aren't better ways of resolving conflict.... What about adults who still think and behave like children? Should we be allowed to smack them???

The slate is not wiped clean in the mind of the child if they then wallow in self pity.

Bearing in wind that to implement time out properly you should only be using 1 minute per year of the child's age (so 5mins for a 5 yo) and you should always remain in sight of the child - I suspect that the OPs father knows nothing about using time out correctly and is talking out of his arse.

wind?? mind. Sorry.

My DS is only 8.5mo so too young for any of this, but I think I'd lean towards the naughty step method as it gives both parent and child a few minutes to calm down.

My mum hit us as a standard disciplinary technique throughout our childhoods and fairly early on I realised it was because she wasn't capable of doing anything more intelligent about our behaviour. Eroded my respect for her pretty quickly I've got to say!

On the other hand, I've never liked the enforced 'now we will have a hug' bit at the end of time out on the naughty step. I know it's meant to show all is forgiven, but my mother only ever hugged us when she'd decided to forgive us and had gotten tired of screaming/hitting/ignoring us. Even now I grit my teeth when I have to hug her because I associate hugging my mother with intense hate (if we didn't play along when she hugged us then the whole horrible screaming thing would flare up again). Basically all I'd say is that if you do the whole 'let's now hug' thing then do make sure you hug your child at other times as well!!

She would also take herself out of the situation when she didn't want to deal with us, by locking herself in the bathroom for hours. At the time we were just a bit hurt and then got used to it. In retrospect I can see how it was a pretty sensible approach and probably stopped the situation escalating...

Bit of a mixed bag there! I suppose what I'm trying to say is that whatever disciplinary methods you follow, just try to show your kids loads of love at other times. That's my game plan anyway :)

I went to an interesting talk last week and it was by a child psychologist and was about self-esteem in children. One of the things research has found is that high boundaries is important for self-esteem, even more than high amounts of love. (both is of course better).

Boundaries need to be discussed and set before punishment is dealt out. At a calm time, you need to discuss with your child what is allowed and what isn't acceptable. Give them a chance to take charge and suggest things to put on the list too. It can work with positive rewards too, not just things that end you up on the naughty step.

She explained a couple of things that were new for me. One, at the end of the time on the step, don't demand an apology straightaway. Tell them when they are ready they can come and apologise. That sort of fits with your personal experience cerys74, that often children are still angry after their punishment and to expect a hug and a sorry then doesn't give them a chance to calm down themselves and say it. I never thought of it like that and now don't expect an instant apology from mine

Another new thing, that a "time out" and the "naughty step" are separate things. The naughty step is for breaking the agreed rules and the time is prescribed by you and their age. They must stay to the end of it. A "time out" is for when they have lost control of themselves and need to regain control of their emotions. You can give a time like 15 minutes, but tell them they can get up when ever they are calm again. The idea with a time out being that they regain control and are encouraged to learn to do it quickly.

No smacking or naughty step in this house. Maybe its just their personalities but our DDs are devastated if they have done something wrong/upset us so telling them that seems to be enough. THis may change... (currently 5 and 3). But accept I may have "easy" children.

Only time I have actually punished was when DD2 aged 2 went through a biting with no remorse stage. I would put her in the porch for 30 seconds she was very upset but stopped biting.

I LOATHE the naughty step thing with a vengeance. What is wrong with telling a child to stop and then sitting with them til they calm down.... instead of this "I can't stand to be with you, stay out of my sight til you are nice" message.

Of my friends with similar age kids, those who do "the naughty step" have the naughtiest kids.

Clearly the "naughty step" means different things to different people and is applied in different ways by different people. You can't reject a whole method of enforcing expected behaviour on the basis of its misuse by some people. Just because something works for you, with your personality, your view of the world and your children, that doesn't mean it can work for everyone - unless you think you are so perfect that everyone should just pretend to be you. If you have trouble keeping your temper, I just don't see how sitting very angrily in the room with your children, telling them through clenched teeth that they must calm down and you will sit down together until that happens, is any better than any other method. For those with volatile tempers, arranging some way of getting two angry people out of each others' hair before they each regret their actions is probably a more desirable approach.