I said somewhere that the police are never going to stamp out crime, not in any disrespect to them, they are fighting it all day long, they are really trying. They are on the front line, with little time and resources for anything but putting out fires, biggest ones first. Again, no disrespect to the police, but the reason that what they do doesn’t end crime generally is because their tools and the bad guys’ tools are the same tools: force and violence. That is what the police do for us, they are a force for power for us against the forces for power that are against our interests. Long term strategies for reduction of the causes of crime, that’s not really their job.

That is our job. And we’re not holding up our end of the deal.

It is before our kids wind up as a problem for the police to deal with, with, again, the same tools as the bad guys, when they’re at home, when they’re small – that is when a different set of tools needs to be used, not the violence and force. Not punishment. So what I’m saying is, the long term reduction of crime must start in the home, and it requires something other than punishment to produce that result.

Punishments are forced, by definition. How does a person endure a punishment unless he is somehow forced to? And force is violence. A rose by any other name . . .

– here’s part #2:

Our end of the Deal, Part #2 – Teachers

                If you own any of the popular parenting books, get that. If you don’t, go buy one, don’t borrow it. Now, reading the book by some parenting guru, some best-selling authority (the one we had when our kids were young was “kids are worth it!” by Barbara Coloroso), do all the good positive stuff in it and ignore all the crap about discipline and structure.

                That should do it.

                 Look for keywords: discipline, structure, consequences, responsibility, ownership, limits, find the parts with words like that – and rip those pages out. (Actually, on second thought, borrow one. Borrow as many as you can find, buy as many as you can afford, then rip all those pages out and give them back, give the ones you bought to charity . . . ) Of course, ‘punishment’ is on that list, it goes without saying. I want to add ‘boundaries’ to that list, but it’s just possible that some of these books might actually acknowledge the child’s boundaries and suggest that we respect those. If that is the case, then that would be part of the good stuff. So, to the good stuff:

                 Love, of course, hugs, kisses, praise and criticism, attention, stimulation, these are good things, the main things. Secondarily, food, water, shelter, medical care, security, these are also important, but not so much as the first list, the primary things. This second list is often used to support ideas like discipline, and if so, that may contravene the very first thing, love. When you’ve got to punish them in the name of safety, who’s keeping them safe from you? So, love, praise, attention, stimulation, these are the good things, these are what loving parents are supposed to bring to the situation, plus I would add communication, talk, talk, talk. These things are compatible, complimentary things, all part of the natural ‘system’ of child-rearing. Talk is the choice to make, because it’s talk or punish, communication or punishment, you can’t have them both. Anyone who tells you that you can is being less than honest.

                While I think there are some parents who don’t love to visit our house due to the constant mess, there are also many who tell us our place is a peaceful oasis, a zone free of parent-child stress and strife. When the girls were young, I’m happy to say, adults were always delighted to meet and spend time with our unpunished children who would talk with them and not display fear and mistrust, which is just the experience that we once had that started us down this road (See ‘Story 4, The Aha Moment). To repeat something I said somewhere else, it seems that if you don’t punish early, you will never have to. The lines of communication have always been open in my family. We’ve never considered punishing, never had to consider it, not since our younger one – a hyperactive child– was a toddler. Then we considered it, but that’s all, thank goodness. She has always been tougher than us, born that way. I’m pretty sure that if we had picked a fight with her then that she’d have been kicking our asses for years by now.

                I think there are two sorts of mindsets, one that sees things, life, as a process, or a vast bunch of interactive processes where things are all in motion. Things change, interact, and adapt with other things and the environment; things are always coming into existence, or fading from existence, if a thing exists, it is because it is being created, actively, I mean that if the processes that create a thing are not in force, the thing will not exist. Creation is a dynamic, always happening thing. Social things, in particular, exist because we create them and support them, we create our human social world continually with choices that we make, by the things that we do.

                The other sort of mindset sees things as static, as existing or not. These things are, and those things are, and these other things are not; this mindset sees things as they are, in the now, and in a way, this is a very practical way to view the world. People with this sort of outlook have little trouble making decisions and getting things done. These two views correspond in some ways to all the other dichotomies of life. We could say, quite easily, that the fluid, process-based view is linked to liberalism, plus, it is apparent that the process-oriented view fits very tightly with evolutionary thinking, while the static view may easily be seen to lend itself to conservatism and even religion.

                  Of course, while avoiding politics in this book, I haven’t kept my attitude secret. The thesis of this book is more liberal than the liberals, in parenting terms, on the spectrum from permissive parenting to authoritarian parenting, I am not in between but left of left, more permissive than the permissive. From where I am on this issue, just about everyone, the permissive and the authoritarian types alike are all just more or less authoritarian. Is that clear enough? Authoritarianism and permissiveness are both the same in this: they both make the same judgment of what is right or wrong, and they both come from a place of entitlement where they feel they have the right, the power, and the responsibility to either forbid or permit. They are both based in authority, and authority is an unequal division of human rights. In terms of parenting, I think our children are not our property, nor are they our slaves or employees. In the circle of life, they are us, people like us. We were them, and they will be us; I think we have no right to make decisions for each other like that at all, and – the point of this book – certainly, absolutely no right to hurt each other to enforce those decisions.

                In terms of what is punishment and what is abuse, the line has been drawn in a number of places through the years and across cultures. Of course it’s not so simple, but can be useful to say that there has been a progression towards humanism over the last few hundred years in European and western culture, during which time punishments have been moving toward gentler means, as well as some movement in that direction for the punishment of children, for not quite so long. It has probably been something less than one hundred years that at least in the West, children have seen their status change from something like property to something like personhood and this is a positive change for everyone, because of course, we all begin as children. Our societies are trying to move away from the corporal punishment of children, and we’re groping a little, trying to find better ways.

                I’ve been thinking about this subject for twenty years as of this writing, sporadically writing about it, reading and blogging, and talking to and observing other parents . . . it was about that same twenty years ago when I realized that punishment, all punishment, was the primary cause of all bad things in life. I have been on-line getting feedback and practicing my arguments for this for several years, and I have been slowly collecting my thoughts for this project nearly my whole adult life, even if I was busy as a working family man and letting it develop mostly on its own schedule. Once I finally decided to attempt the book, the first several parts flowed out as fast as I could type it, despite that it was very different from my blogs and my previous writings, as I knew it would have to be. I had no writers’ blocks. I couldn’t wait to write, and I lost some sleep for not being able to stop thinking about it. But I have to say, it was at exactly this point in the book, this week, as I write this where I very nearly stalled.

                 I knew that non-physical discipline would form the central part of this thing, so I began to read about it again. Honestly, it had been a long while since I gave it enough credit to actually focus and slow-read it; fortunately it isn’t hard to find. It’s all over the ‘interwebs,’ as a niece of ours says. I had my idea of what was wrong with Positive Parenting, and what I would say, how I would refute it . . . but reading it somehow got to me. I lost my confidence. Positive Parenting very nearly won me over, and I was feeling like I had no legitimate complaints to make about it; it sounds so professional and so, well, positive. The entire four day Easter weekend came and went, and although I got some stuff done in the yard and completed and filed our income taxes, I was very worried that my book was dead. Who could critique all those professionals? Who could shout down all that beautiful, positive language? When I finally sat down to write, I chose the Gershoff article as typical as well as close to the original, I think, close to ‘from the horse’s mouth,’ no slight intended, and I started writing from fear and respect. I want to leave that bit in, I really do mean the respect, and I really do think the whole idea is a major step away from the old, violent parenting model, especially because of the cultural backlash that is always looming about it.

                 Once I got past the disclaimer though, when I started my critique, all that was over. The spell was broken; the failure of logic that I was looking at in that article was just too easy. Again, words began to pour out of me.

                The idea is incredibly seductive, insidious. I had my insight, and I have positioned myself against it for decades, and still I was seduced. That tells me a number of things: one, I was not missed, not passed over by the culture of punishment we live in. Very few are, I imagine.

                 Two, someone even more thoroughly indoctrinated in the normal system than myself is at the mercy of these ideas. Someone who has never questioned it – and they are out there, are they ever! The number of people I’ve encountered in real life and on-line who have never even dreamed of a life without punishment, a life where the people who love you don’t hurt you to prove it, it’s scary – someone who has never questioned it, has very little chance to hear it. It is going to take some very good arguments, and even if I can make them, it’s probably all for naught.

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.