Whoever tells us that ‘no matter what you do, teenagers are Hell’ lie. My teenagers have been a breeze. Thing is, if you make an enemy of your child, your life gets worse as they grow in knowledge and power. Powerful enemies are a bad thing indeed.

Turning that equation over, if you have someone in your life that makes your life harder as they learn and grow, that must be one of a number of things, in two catagories:

1. They are NOT learning, perhaps in the case of a special needs child, or perhaps you are trying to make a pet out of an undomesticated animal, a chimp, or a large predator, like a bear or a big cat.

2. If it’s really true that it’s a fully-abled human being and they ARE learning – you have, intentionally or not, made an enemy of them rather than a friend. That’s what punishing does. I know it’s not what you wanted it to do, I know it’s not why you do it – but that’s what it does.

But if your FRIENDS grow in knowledge and power, life just keeps getting easier, and that’s how it’s been with my kids, easier the older they get.

                Next, this is what the “new punishers” call offering choices: “Which do you want to do first—brush your teeth or take a bath?” This is a word game too, I’m afraid. I understand this is designed to include the child in the decision making process, at least to make the child feel as though he is, but it’s not really a choice, and at some point, the child may figure it out and trust may be compromised, the same as with punishments. It’s “positive” only in the sense that having your parents lie to you when you’re little is more positive than being beaten by them. Suppose I said to my wife “Which do you want to do first – vacuum the living room or clean out the litter box?” Would she feel I’ve ‘included her in the decision making process,’ and be glad to share in the responsibility of planning our evening, or would I wind up unconscious on the living room carpet under a pile of dirty kitty litter?  These sorts of “choices” are offensive attempts to trick, not the ‘trust building’ exercises we might wish them to be.

                 What follows in the article is a series of transgressions and the non-physical punishment to match, all of which would only ever work if the child is willing, and if not, I repeat: it’s a recipe for physical punishment (or at least a fight).

                 It needs to be said that none of the goals of discipline are bad in themselves; I have no objection to the things we want to happen when discipline seems to be called for, but that’s sort of obvious. Of course the goals are acceptable. Abuse is in the method, in the matter of choice. Hyperbole being my forte, I offer an extreme illustration: sex is a lovely thing; lovemaking is not intrinsically wrong or evil. If I wish a joyful interlude of lovemaking for myself and a partner, this is an acceptable goal, a pleasantry for all. But if I make a rule about it? If I say to my partner, “Sweetie, you need some loving, it’s good for you, everyone needs it,” that’s all well and good, but if I make it a rule and make it happen, If my partner doesn’t want it but I unilaterally decide it’s a good thing and force it? That is called rape, of course. And so it is with discipline. The goal is good and rational, it seems to go towards a healthy person and a healthy society, but if we force it, if we make it happen – then it has become something else. Again, abuse is in the method, in the matter of choice.

                After all that, it still needs to be said: most of the damage of punishment and abuse is not the physical damage, so if that list of “non-physical disciplinary measures” works, it works by damaging the kids. Don’t worry about that though, it doesn’t work, not by itself. It only works because it’s backed up by the other kind of discipline.

Secondly, the concept is prone to changes in language only.

“ . . . by the promise of rewards rather than by threats of punishment.” is the first one in the article that stands out. I see no difference between “If you’re all ready to go to Grandma’s in five minutes, we’ll stop for ice cream” (an offer of reward) and “If you’re not ready to go to Grandma’s in five minutes, we’re not stopping for ice cream” (a threat of punishment). For any reasoning person, this does not constitute any change whatsoever, except in the wording.

“ . . . removal from the situation . . . “ – this is most likely physical, and most likely to be felt as unpleasantness. This is the same as time out, likely the first part of the time out process, and always a situation that might cause a child to resist and fight. If the adult removing the child is committed to their choice of action – and the advice is to be consistent and to do what they say they’re going to do – then this situation is a recipe for physical punishment, or at least a fight. Again, I see no change here from the old, physical “system” and the new, save in words only.

First of all, I want to say I commend the work of people like Elizabeth Gershoff, Joan Durrant, etc., that have been producing this sort of information for parents and say that these ideas are a huge step forward in child-rearing information and methodology. These people are doing great work, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. Theirs is work I would never attempt to invalidate; I only wish to further it, if I can. They are the professionals; I am a tradesman and a parent of only a few children, and not to be sexist about it, but my kids are girls. I’m told I have had it pretty easy.

Having said that, I have substantial objections.

First of all, Ms. Gershoff, I apologize for making your article my example. The previously cited metastudy on physical punishment was excellent. I am hoping that this is sort of fair, to cite the same people for my case and against, as opposed to choosing one authority to praise and another to criticize. It is only an example, an example of a large volume of information that can be found everywhere. The type of information Ms Gershoff et al., have provided has had huge circulation and can be found in many forms and many places. It is, as near as I can see the current standard, and I can’t say it enough, a huge improvement over the previous standard. I don’t consider that I am critiquing anyone in particular, and I am attempting to address concepts only, and not personalities. Having said that, we had one parenting manual in the house when my children were young: “kids are worth it!” by Barbara Coloroso. Although just this year, in preparation for this book, I’ve been internet researching and reading much ‘positive parenting’ literature from a variety of sources, it may be that it was that book that has been on my mind during the intervening years, while I’ve been raising my kids and developing my idea.

Firstly, and this is almost correct, really: the above advice says nothing about what a parent is to do if none of it “works,” if the child is intractable.

I think this may be where I differ, even though I also offer nothing that “works” for that. As I stated at the outset, this is not a parenting manual. All I’m offering here is what not to do, and why. I fear that this is where the entire system of positive parenting breaks down, that when none of the positive, “first, do no harm” methods bring about the result the parent wants or needs, that there may be some tacit approval there to do what is necessary. One still has the impression from this sort of literature that it remains the case that the parent is always in charge, that it is the parent’s plan that should always be followed, and that the whole plan is offered as an alternate way for the parent to always get the results he, she, or both are after. Thus, it is a change of preferred method only, and not really anything qualitative, not really a change of principle, and therefore always vulnerable of interpretation to the old ways.

The literature very often, as this article does, endorses the “time out.” This is not offered as a punishment, the time out is only a way to diffuse a situation, or stop some rough interaction, allow one or more participants to cool down, maybe get distracted. (There is far more to say and far more that has been said about time outs, most notably that the use of time out is basically the same as solitary confinement for adult convicts, as well as the actual penalty for children being, from the child’s point of view, an enforced parental abandonment. This is not the point I wish to discuss, I don’t wish to be discussing the various methods of punishing and their relative merits. I am critiquing the principle, the merits or not of any sort of punishing. Having said that, upon editing this section, it seemed an omission not to mention the punitive aspect of the time out.) However, this, or any sort of punishment, will a great deal of the time cause the non-physical method to break down very quickly indeed, if the child doesn’t want to do it. Any plan the parent has, anything the parent thinks MUST happen can and often will, start a fight. When the parent must win the fights, there will be threats, intimidation, or force, maybe even violence. In this way, non-physical punishments are oxymoronic: how physical do you have to be, sometimes, to get an angry, misbehaving child to take his or her non-physical penalty?