The Myth That Kids Who Aren't Hit Don't Respect Parents and Won't Behave Well

This Hub is one that I wanted to put together because I think it's important. I suppose, too, one reason I felt "inspired" to post all this is that after several years seeing what people post online, I've seen, once too often, a remark about how "bleeding heart" parents cannot possibly have their children's respect if they don't hit, yell at, and/or punish their children. (There's a difference between "having consequences" and "punishing".)

My kids are grown, so what other people do with their kids isn't my business. It's just that it irks me to see so many people who are so absolutely confident in their assertions that it's not possible to have children's respect without resorting to yelling, hitting, and/or punishing them. I've seen otherwise (with my own children, in my own childhood family, and with extended family and friends), and I have the grown children and the respect we've always shared between us to show for it.

I guess I just think it's time that the people who have seen what I have seen, and who know what I know about getting children's respect without scaring them into something that only looks like it, start speaking up. (To be honest, I'm kind of tired of being the generally polite and respectful person my parents raised me to be, and not saying what I think someone ought to say.)

During one of the many screening interviews that took place prior to my adopting one of my children, the social worker asked, "Could you tell me what your parents did as far as disciplining their children went?" It was the only question she asked that left me feeling as if I didn't have an immediate answer.

As I searched my mind for what to say, I could feel my eyes "looking" for an answer and my shoulders shrugging. After a few awkward "ums" and the realization that no answer had come to me, I said, "I don't really know. Nothing, I guess. They just talked." I was incredibly horrified and terrified by an answer that seemed so inept and unsure. The social worker wrote something down in her notes and moved on to the next question. I worried that my "horrible answer" had destroyed my chances of passing the screening. I hoped she would realize that my seemingly inept response was rooted in the fact that my own parents had been loving, skilled, and kind parents.

Thinking back as far as I can remember, I recall how kind and loving my parents always were; but also that they simply let us know what was expected of us, the difference between right and wrong, and that - if nothing else - we were to treat them with the respect with which they treated us and each other. Before becoming old enough to go to school, my siblings and I were all pretty well behaved kids at home. There was about five years between us, so we got plenty of attention.

We absolutely adored our parents, who were (in the words a young child) "so nice". We didn't view what they expected of us as "unreasonable", because they never expected anything unreasonable of us. The simple rules by which we were expected to live involved things like not breaking things, behaving well when we went somewhere, not fighting, and "NEVER, EVER" talking back to our parents. (It's important to note that they did not yell at us either.)

Once we got to be school-aged life got a little more complicated. Children of school age often just do things they shouldn't do because it "seems like a good idea at the time". When our parents found out we had done something we shouldn't have they would (as I would eventually tell that social worker) talk to us. They would talk about why what we had done was wrong, how disappointed in us they were, how they couldn't understand how we would ever do such a thing, and what other people would think of us if we ever did that thing again.

They would talk about integrity and reputation. They'd talk about how "being sneaky" would make people think very little of us. They talked about honesty, self-respect, being a good friend, what kind of person they wanted us to be - and on and on and on. It was always one of the most uncomfortable experiences of our lives, and when they'd wrap it all up with a reminder of how disappointed they were in us it pretty much sealed in the guilt rather effectively.

Upon thinking about it, though, I realize how, even though something had seemed like a good idea at the time, I, for one, had my own guilt long before I had been caught. So, when my parents did find out and would begin on one those marathon talks about the misdeed, it became quite clear what a good idea the deed WASN'T.

Still, my clever parents had managed to raise three kids without any real "discipline strategy" and by simply ad libbing as the occasion called for it. They had managed three decent, caring, people who didn't get into trouble while creating the impression that they had never really used any discipline strategy.

As an adult, and recalling the degree of "feeling rotten" that my parents managed to create in me; I have to say that I think they could have lightened up a little on the guilt. After all, I had my own conscience (thanks to their doing a good job in my preschool years) and was only a kid. Kids mess up. It wasn't that they were abusive or demeaning or belittling. It was more that they over-estimated the seriousness of the offense and let us know (or at least led us to believe) that they were worried we would turn into criminals. When you're ten years old, and you know that just because you and girlfriends rang a few doorbells it doesn't mean you're headed for a life a crime; you don't know how to reassure your parents they don't need to worry. It may not be the best thing for a child to have to think, "Wait until I grow up, and they'll see that I didn't turn into a criminal". (Then again, it was, I suppose, an effective thing.)

Once I had grown up and knew I would be building my own family I thought quite a bit about my own parenting approach. For the most part, I wanted to do things very much as my parents had, with the exception of attempting to make my children feel guiltier than they already did if they did something wrong. I would let my children know when they had done something unacceptable. I would talk about most of the things my parents talked about. If they were old enough, and if the occasion called for it, I may even impose some consequence that seemed appropriate (such as taking away a toy or not allowing television). My plan, however, was to try, too, to help my children know that even if I did not approve of their unacceptable action I understood (and they should as well) that kids mess up. It's all part of being a kid.

29 years after that interview with the adoption worker, I still don't know what she thought or wrote down when I gave my "horrible" answer that day. I passed the screening, so I like to think that my utter inability to describe my parents' approach to discipline showed that I had been raised by loving, good, parents who understood the importance of setting some reasonable rules, telling children right from wrong, and further elaborating when the occasion seemed to call for it.

I suppose the reason I essentially told that social worker my parents didn't really have any "approach to discipline" was that my parents just knew their role as parents (and how much they loved us) and never viewed "discipline" as a separate "category".

When it comes down to it, the reason there is no "perfect discipline strategy" for children is that strategies are for things like finances, business, and football games. Being a good, loving, capable, parent is about so much more than strategy - so very much more.

The best way to help children develop self-control is to start early, while their brain connections are being formed in the first few years of life, by setting a few, basic, limits. Most people are familiar with the story, The Miracle Worker, which is the story of Helen Keller, who, because of not being able to see, speak, or hear after getting an illness as a toddler, was a horribly out-of-control little girl until a teacher, Anne Sullivan, found a way to get Helen to stop, pay attention to what was happening, and eventually learn to behave and communicate. While the situation for healthy babies is not as extreme, a similar type of thing happens when babies, toddlers, or preschoolers are allowed to go around and do whatever they want until its time for preschool or kindergarten, when suddenly the fact that they have no self-control becomes a problem.

One way to begin helping a child have self-control is to begin when he first starts crawling and then walking. Babies do, of course, need to explore and have some freedom. Still, by having a few, basic, limits on their exploration babies can learn some elementary self-control. Although babies and toddlers understand far more of what we say than we realize, there is, of course, the issue that they can't understand much of we may say. Regardless of how much they understand what we say, they do get messages and gain experience from what we do.

Deciding what limits to place on a baby or toddler is easy: Every home, no matter how well child-proofed, has a few things that babies should not touch or go near. Electrical outlets (even with the child-proof covers), tops of stairs, or maybe a brick fireplace hearth are good examples. If there is a cat or dog in the house that's one more thing babies can learn about. Allowing a one-year-old to climb on whatever he wants - with the exception of the tables and counters - offers freedom with another basic limit. Buttons or knobs on televisions or a computer are another sensible thing to establish as off-limits. Once a parent has established the few basic limits those limits will remain constant enough so that even a fairly young but mobile baby can learn.

By simply being consistent about telling the baby "no" when he heads for the outlets or starts to pick up the cat, and by adding a little explanation (such as, "Ooh - we don't pick up the kitty when she's eating. She needs her dinner.") it will be enough for the baby or toddler to have experience having

his actions interrupted and being called upon to try to figure out what the words of his mother's explanation mean. A younger baby/toddler isn't going to really understand the words much of the time, but that isn't really the point. Not only is his brain gaining experience in having its "willy-nilly" exploring interrupted, and not only is his brain being called upon to stop for a minute and try to figure out what his mother is saying, but he will eventually learn each of those few things in the house that will always get the same reaction from his mother. He'll figure out that even though he'd like to check out the outlet or pick up the cat he shouldn't bother because he'll be stopped. At this point the baby or toddler is actually exercising self-control; and the more chance he gets to practice doing that, the more experienced his brain will become at using self-control.

Its important that the limits be few in number because too many limits would mean the baby or toddler is being stopped every time he tries to explore anything at all. There should be more than one off-limits thing, though, because without more than one the baby may not "put two and two together" when it comes to getting the idea. Having these few, sensible, limits set for a baby or toddler doesn't prevent him from exploring and having freedom. It just gives him experience stopping and thinking every once in a while. When a baby or toddler is going around and exploring whatever he wants his brain is getting experience in one type of thinking. When he is required to stop, consider, try to figure out why he was stopped, and adjust his actions his brain is gaining experience with a different type of thinking.

Offering a simple explanation also helps build the toddler's vocabulary, because even though he may not understand exactly what "burn" means if his mother takes him away from an electrical outlet and says, "Ooh - that will burn my baby," he'll get the idea that the word, "burn", means something unpleasant. This type of thing offers a foundation for expanding vocabulary, and a better vocabulary helps the child understand future limits (and everything else) better.

Children have the potential to develop certain brain connections in the first three years of life, and if the right connections (synapses) are not nurtured during that time the potential to develop them is gone forever. This is precisely why it makes sense to try to develop the foundation for self-control during this time.

Another way to help a baby develop self-control is to make him wait for just the shortest period of time for something he wants. For example, when a seven-month old cries for his bottle if his mother pops her head in the bedroom door and says, "I'll go get it. Wait just a minute," and if she returns quickly he'll gain experience waiting for just a little while. He may not understand "I'll go get it" right away, but he'll figure out that when she says that she disappears for a couple of minutes and comes back with the bottle. A hungry seven-month old shouldn't have to wait for ten minutes, and he certainly won't have the patience to do that, but if his mother just disappears for three minutes he may actually spend those three minutes trying to figure out what she meant when she said, "I'll go get it," His brain will gain experience with wanting something, getting some response, waiting for a few minutes, and then getting what he wants. Again, this interrupts the automatic "cry/get a bottle immediately" process and causes a few things to go on in his brain that will eventually contribute to self-control.

When a mother requires a toddler to hold her hand as they walk through a store she can explain, "You have to hold my hand in here so I won't lose you." His brain gets the experience of putting together the idea that in this particular place there is the hand-holding rule. He gets to have experience not running wherever he wants to run even though he may wish he could. Being required to hold his mother's hand doesn't have to feel restrictive to him, though, because seeing what there is to see in the store as he holds his mother's hand can still be fun for him. He can learn that he can also have fun when he's not "running wild". Gaining experience having a nice, fun, time without "running around crazy" helps him to learn that having fun doesn't always require running around. This makes him a little more receptive to activities that may involve a limit or two.

For older toddlers/preschoolers, having a few simple rules like, "We need to keep the crayons in the kitchen, not in the living room" helps their brain get practice in understanding that crayons could ruin the rug, and there is a rule about them. (Again, a child can have plenty of freedom even with the "no-crayons-on-the-rug" rule.) Unlimited freedom and no limits whatsoever will result in a child's behaving in a way that's not as extreme but similar to the way Helen Keller did at five years old.

Once the child is over two-and-a-half or so his mother can further help him develop self-control by setting a few, basic, limits in what is expected of him in a few outside-the-home settings. If he goes with her to the bank or insurance agent she can explain, "I need to talk to the lady. If you could just sit quietly while I do that we can go the park afterward." Explaining to a preschooler that he can't be running around the restaurant when you bring him out to eat is another way for him to learn to control his own behavior when he needs to. If a child gets too antsy to sit in the restaurant bringing him out to where he can move around for a while can help him learn that he can run around a little if he needs to - just not in the restaurant where hot food is being carried and where grown-ups want to talk. Having a few basic rules about a time and place for anything he wants to do helps him learn that concept of a time and place for different activities. He won't just learn self-control. He'll learn acceptable social behavior. He'll learn that throwing a ball in the living room can break Grandma's nice vase, that running near the fireplace can be dangerous, and that yelling in the library isn't acceptable. He'll learn he can run and yell and jump in any number of places, but not everywhere; and it is in learning that that he will learn self-control.

By beginning with the simplest of limits that yield nothing more than a conditioned response in the very beginning, and continuing to set a few, basic, limits of a "more advanced" nature and limits that are appropriate for a child's increasing understanding and larger world, a mentally and physically healthy child should have no problem with self-control by the time he gets to kindergarten.

Many children today are diagnosed with (and often medicated for) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The exact cause of each case of ADHD is not

always known, and many people believe children may be being over-diagnosed and

sometimes inappropriately prescribed medication. Parents need to consider that

there is at least the chance that some cases of what appears to be ADHD could actually be a matter of a young child's never forming - in his earlier years - the brain connections needed for focus and self-control.

This is not to suggest that every correctly or incorrectly diagnosed case of ADHD is the result of parents' failings. It is only to suggest that waiting until a child is about to begin school to start thinking about teaching self-control may be too late.

Author's Notes:

1) www.zerotothree.org offers excellent information on the development of synapses in the first three years of life

2) While I gave my grown daughter and two grown sons lots of freedom to play and explore when they were little, I set limits as described above. All three children had exceptional self-control. I don't know if every parent will get the same results by using this approach, but I do know it is the approach that worked extremely well for my own children.

Dorothy Law Nolte's verse, "Children Learn What They Live" says it all.

When parents treat children with respect, kindness, understanding, and reasoning those children (far earlier than some people would ever imagine) treat their parents and others with respect, kindness, understanding, and reasoning.

That's not saying parents who don't hit their children don't tell their children right from wrong. They not only tell them right from wrong, but through reasoning and reasonable consequences they do a better job of teaching why things are wrong and what the natural consequences are when someone does what is wrong.

I was raised in a non-hitting family, and I raised my children (now grown) the same way, and I'd venture to say that I think children raised in families where respect, reasoning, and understanding are valued may actually love their parents a little more than children who came to think of their parents as "authoritarian" and as people who didn't believe children deserve the same respect they, themselves, expect others to show them.

People who strike their children will often say, "Sometimes that's the only thing that works." That's what they believe because they didn't learn that whole families of well behaved, decent, children can be raised from birth to adulthood without ever being hit by the people who claim to love them the most.

Parents who hit children are often parents who will tell those children how wrong it is to hit other people. What children learn is 1) that their parents don't really believe that and 2) that hitting people smaller than you, and hitting people you claim to love, is what you get to do when you grow up.

I once read a book that analyzed the components of love. It noted that trying to control someone else is not real love, and neither is believing that someone else belongs to you. The one thing I remember most about that book was how it pointed out that genuine love ALWAYS has to have respect and admiration.

The world is full of people who have grown up after being hit as children and who will say, "I was hit, and I'm ok." Well, I'm not saying people will die from being hit or that everyone who was ever hit by parents will be a criminal. I am saying, however, that the relationship children have with their non-hitting parents is a better one; that not hitting children is the only real way to practice what we preach, the children who aren't hit are often far better behaved than children who are, and that even people who think they're "ok" after being hit aren't as "ok" as they would have been had they not been hit.

Think of this: Of people who were struck as children some grow up and vow never to do that to their own children. That tells us they want to be better parents than their parents were. Some, on the other hand, grow up and believe there is no way to raise a good child without hitting. The world is full of non-hitting parents with good children that prove this is a misguided, incorrect, belief. Some may know that other people can raise children without hitting them but believe their own children are too out-of-control to be able to do that. Some even believe their own children were just "born difficult", which says they believe their own children are inherently inferior to more reasonable children. (TV's Super Nanny goes into people's homes and shapes up these "difficult" children in short order.) Which of these scenarios points to hitting one's children as a way to be a good parent? None of them - and that's my point.

Basic Steps for Having Civilized Children

Getting children to be children who behave in public places is a matter of expecting socially acceptable behavior at home. I'm not saying children need to learn to behave at home the way they should at the library or in church, but teaching them that there is a time and place for certain activities (even at home) will help them "mentally categorize" behavior and learn what time and what place if right for each type of behavior.

When my children were little the guideline I generally used to establish what kind of behavior I wanted to teach them was asking myself, "Is this socially acceptable in adult life?" One example of how this guideline worked is this: When it comes to running around and yelling, is this behavior acceptable in adult life? The answer, of course, is that it may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable but usually only in a certain setting, such as a soccer game. This meant that I should teach my children that running around and yelling has its place in the yard, in friends' yards, at the park, etc., but not in the dining room or living room.

If you have places in the house where too much active play isn't done and places in the house and yard where it is, children have the freedom to play as they like but understand that they are expected to choose the right location for an activity. If parents have a place or two that are completely off-limits to children (the entertainment center, a corner of a room where plants are located, etc.) children become aware of how some objects are not for children at all. I'm not suggesting keeping children out of whole rooms - just having a corner here or there or a piece of furniture or electronics that children know they must not touch.

Giving children the freedom to almost do whatever they want to in the house with just a few simple rules can make them feel free while, at the same time, making them aware of certain places for certain activities. A simple rule like "no eating in the living room" teaches that some places have rugs or upholstery that people don't want stained.

When it comes to a time for certain activities teaching a time for each thing is easy. Parents can structure a day so that, for example, mornings include one type of activity (getting ready to go to work or school, eating breakfast), afternoons are for playing (outdoors or indoors), dinner time is a time for the family to sit together, after dinner may be the time for homework, early evening may be the time for a little television watching or quiet activity before bed time. Explaining to children that they shouldn't be running around crazy when bedtime is near, and turning the volume down on televisions or turning the lights down somewhat, can help them see the difference between afternoon activities and evening activities.

When children learn that there is "running around crazy" activity, "regular but not crazy playing", "quiet playing", reading or relaxing in front of the television it is easier for them to understand what parents mean if they say, "We're going to Susie's house. Please, no running around crazy," or "We're going to my doctor's office. Please, only quiet playing or reading."

Once children are accustomed to recognizing the different types of activities and ways that time can make a difference in what people do, it should be easy to explain to them, "We're going to talk to the car insurance man. He doesn't want children running around his office, so you can just sit and look at your book while I talk to him. Later, we can go to the park." Explaining to children, too, that when children behave well in public places they are treated well by adults but when they act up people are not going to want to have them there is something children usually understand.

Children who behave well in public places actually are treated with more kindness and more friendliness than children who don't. Children who learn that wherever they go nobody seems to like them and everybody seems to be scolding them have to grow up seeing the world in a very different way than children who are well liked and treated well by "The world". It has to have at least some effect on their sense of self-esteem and their view of other people, and it has to be worth the effort to try to teach them that there is a time and place for everything.

What has happened to discipline for children is a matter of a "pendulum" having swung too far.  There are two likely contributing factors for this:  One is that many people of past generations grew up with parents and teachers who used harsh discipline (verbal, physical, or both) on them; and as a result, grew up vowing not to treat their own children that way.  The other is that today experts (and, in turn, many parents) have a better understanding of the negative effects that harsh discipline has on children.  As a result, these two factors may have come along at the same time over the last several decades - combining, and leading to the general trend away from harsh forms of discipline. 

Whether it is through better understanding in the field of psychology, or as a result of recalling being a child treated harshly, more and more people in recent years realize that children are not "evil" or "bad" when they do something they shouldn't do (or don't do something they should).  More and more parents now realize that children's immature development will inevitably lead to any number of behaviors, and using harsh discipline for the "normal mess-ups" of childhood is not the right thing to do.  The trouble over the last few decades has been that, in their attempts to correct what was once bad parenting behavior, parents of younger generations have taken things too far in the other direction.

The Post-War Baby Boom generation may have been the first generation of children to have parents so freely value the concept of childhood and encourage the preservation of a "happy and innocent" one.  The widespread, 1950's phenomenon of the emphasis American World War II generation parents placed on family and childhood was a first in history.  Often having been raised in an era when children were routinely mistreated in one way or another, parents of this generations often decided to do things very differently.  Even though there continued to be some harsh treatment of children, the degree to which it occurred was not the same as it had been for earlier generations.  As a result, there was a high enough percentage of Baby Boomers raised without harsh discipline to view it very differently.  Of those with less reasonable parents, some may have been influenced by societal beliefs.  Others may have grown up still believing there is no way to teach children right from wrong without treating them harshly.  Still, Baby Boom children raised by "kinder, gentler" parents came in numbers large enough to impact the general thinking for the next generation.

When the pendulum may have begun to swing too far, however, may have been when the era of "touchy feely" self-help books came into full swing.  "How to Be Your Own Best Friend" and "I'm Ok, You're Ok" were but two books that ushered in the self-help era.  With them, of course, came the era of "peace and love" to further cause Baby Boomers to consider the consequences of treating children harshly.

Perhaps having yet even more impact may have been an increasing number of parenting books, which led parents to believe that understanding when milestones are reached and how to feed and diaper a baby are all there is to know about parenting.   Many such books do use a "touchy feely" tone in an attempt to get readers to understand that children are fragile and not-quite-finished little people; but such a tone has a way of overlooking the fact that sometimes children need parents who, themselves, use a no-nonsense tone when telling children how to behave well.

Of course with the Baby Boom generation's common thinking that all old ways of doing things had to be changed came trying any number of new ways of doing things, and some of those new ways have just turned out to bad ways.   Even people who were not treated harshly as children may have felt their parents were too restricting of their activities, so when they, themselves, and when such people have children they may tend to let them be much freer much sooner.  Parents often have difficulty seeing that fine line between allowing freedom while also telling a child how to behave appropriately.

Then, too, as Baby Boom parents ushered in the "parents as market" era, the money-making potential for companies may have contributed to the thinking of some parents, simply by creating the books and products that would appeal to them but not necessarily promote the most sensible child-rearing practices.

Of course, the children of Baby Boom parents are now often grown with children of their own; and while it may have been the Baby Boom era that brought about major shifts in parenting techniques, children of Boomers may be the first generation of children to grow up without the kind of parenting examples that Baby Boomers had (and may have emulated in at least some ways).  As a result, many of today's parents (40, 30, or even 20 years of age) have grown up from "one to three generations aways from" parents who (although in some cases far too harsh and too "un-knowing" about child psychology) had a certain level of expectation for their child's behavior.

To further contribute, society's overall standard of what is considered "bad behavior" has changed, possibly as a result of so many children having been raised with lower standards of behavior. 

It is important to recognize that with any generation there have always been some parents who simply know how to teach children right from wrong, and teach good behavior, without harsh discipline; but as any school teacher will tell you, it is usually not the well behaved children who get noticed.

What has happened to discipline is that it is often lost somewhere between those swings of the pendulum between the "too-harsh side" and the "anything-goes side".  For all those parents who are skilled enough to know how teach right from wrong without being harsh, there are many more who - particularly in this present era - have not been raised seeing examples on which to model their own parenting approach.

Again, I refer to Dorothy Law Nolte's, "Children Learn What They Live", in which the wise author points out the many things that children learn from what they have experienced in life.

As someone who grew up just kind of naturally having respect for others and for the world, and as some who has three grown children for whom respecting others and the world, it seems clear to me that teaching children to respect themselves, others, and the world is a matter of being an example.

Many parents pay lip-service to the concept of raising children who have respect for themselves, others, and the world but overlook what could be the single, most important, way to teach respect to children - showing them respect. Showing children respect can mean talking to them with the same degree of respect we expect them to show us. (People can have different opinions or even disagreements without being disrespectful.) It can mean showing respect for the world by doing something as simple as picking up something from the floor in a store rather than leave it to be stepped on or giving a quick swipe of a paper towel to the ladies' room sink where liquid soap leaked out as we used the dispenser. It can mean being an example when it comes to how we treat animals. How we speak to store clerks or teachers or anyone else can provide another example of how adults treat others with respect.

Having a simple policy like, "I do not treat you disrespectfully, and you are not to treat me that way either," is easy for children to understand when that statement reflects the reality in which they live. Treating others with respect isn't about expecting them to remain silent and never disagree. It is about the difference between respectful voicing of opinions rather than the disrespectful hurling of angry words and name-calling.

When children see their parents treat others with respect, and when they see parents who move through the world as if they share it with others rather than as if the world is theirs to be disregarded or abused if they want, they emulate their parents' behavior. Talking to children about the feelings of other people or of animals does have an impact on children. Something else that has impact is helping children realize that other people work hard to have something or to keep a park or building clean. Talking about being a thoughtful individual or good citizen makes a person a better person is another way to help children be aware of the value of respect.

Children do "learn what they live", but they also listen (even if it doesn't always seem as if they do). Having a household where respect is valued, and talking about the importance of respect with children, are generally the ways we teach children about respect.

Everyone has a different idea about what makes "great kids". My interpretation of the term, "great", is children who have no behavior problems, do well (or at least reasonably well) in school, are generally thought well of when brought out in public, and - most important - are non-aggressive, kind, caring, and respectful of others and the world.

It may not seem very modest of me to say, but when my (now grown) kids were children they were each that kind of "great kid". That's not saying that all three didn't do anything they shouldn't on occasion. All three, though, were kind, thoughtful, well behaved, kids who who behaved well at home and outside. Although there was the occasional squabble, they generally got along well with one another most of the time. We were a close and great "team", and enjoyed being together - and, I'll admit it, I was always very proud of the kind of people they were.

I've always credited my own parents for the fact that I was a confident and capable mother. It wasn't so much any particular tips or advice that my mother gave, but her general approach to being a mother, herself, that may have been the best example for me to emulate.

When my children were babies twenty or so years ago, my mother was commenting on all the parenting books and other products available to parents of my generation. She said, "You know, when I had my babies it never occurred to me to be buying all kinds of books and joining all kinds of groups for mothers. I just knew I wanted my kids. I loved them. When I had my babies I just brought them home, took good care of them, and was happy to have them; and I just went along. That was it. I never questioned myself. Nothing was a big deal, and everything was fine."

Someone may think that the above remarks were made by a mother who didn't realize that such an approach would cause her children to have all kinds of problems; but the fact is, my mother's approach was as "fine" as she described it. She and my father loved us, and let us know it. They told us right from wrong, but never yelled at us or hit us. My sister (four and a half years older than I am) and I got along well. I was 15, and she was 19, when we had our one and only argument over her (then) messiness and my picky neatness. Our little brother (five years younger than I) was quite a tease to his older sisters; and because I wasn't physically much bigger than he was, I did squabble (it sometimes seemed) relentlessly with him. Still, he and I also did quite a bit of playing together in our better moments.

Each of us kids did our occasionally things we shouldn't do. If we were caught it was "discussed to death" by our parents. Sometimes we managed not to get caught. Still, we didn't do horrible things. We did the usual kind of stupid things that kids do. We were raised in a peaceful, loving, home; treated with respect, expected to treat others (especially our parents) with respect, and (in the words of my mother) expected to "just do what you're supposed to do". When we got to be school age, all three of us excelled and behaved well.

As an adult, I can look back and see a few relatively minor things my parents did that they could have handled a little better. Still, those things occurred seldom enough that I can count them on one hand.

As role models, my parents were responsible, caring, hard-working, people who didn't just take good care of us, but who tried to help anyone else who could use some help. They were kind people, and they emphasized to us that all they really cared about was that we stayed healthy and turned out to be people who were "decent people".

As I approached the years when I would be starting my family, I (unlike my mother) did do quite a bit of reading about child development. More importantly, (possibly like my mother, although she never said it) I spent a lot of time developing a personal "parenting philosophy" so that I would be prepared with one when I actually had my first child. I made it a point to consider, too, what I saw as "important" in terms of behavior. At the time, I realized that a good guide with regard to what to teach children about behavior is to ask, "Is this acceptable in adult society?"

For example, if a child were throwing a ball in the living room I'd reason that such behavior is generally not acceptable in adult society. On the other hand, throwing a ball in the yard (or even the play room) would be acceptable.

On matter such as whether or not a child should finish all his vegetables I realized that not finishing all our vegetables is acceptable in adult society. On the other hand, running through stores is not.

Having given what I thought was ample thought and preparation to becoming a parent, and having had the examples of my own parents' parenting, I felt (as my mother had) more than ready to become a mother. In fact, I was so confident in my ability to be a good mother that when I knew of an infant who was being placed for adoption I decided to try to adopt him. I believed I could give him an excellent childhood - simply because I wanted to be his mother, had done some preparations for becoming one, and had lots of love to give him. Although I was never very sure of myself during the screening process, when my husband and I were approved to adopt I allowed myself to secretly acknowledge that I knew it was clear I would be a good mother.

When my first son was five years old I had my second son at 34 weeks. It was, of course, frightening; and yet I remained confident in my ability to "just bring him home and take good care of him". As it had with his brother, loving him came naturally and grew deeper with each passing week (and later year). Being a mother was tiring, of course, but my two little boys were nice little boys who gave me no problems (except for the worry when they got sick). There was a lot of responsibility, thinking, and work involved in being a mother; but having my wonderful "little set" of two little boys was such a joy, adding a third child just seemed like a nice idea. By that time I was absolutely sure of myself as a mother; so when my daughter was born, she was nothing but an absolutely bonus and joy - right up to today (which happens to be her 24th birthday).

Like my parents had been, my husband and I were mature and ready when we began our family. I never questioned my ability to love a child, to be responsible, or to be able to muster up whatever it takes at any given time to be a good parent. Like my mother had, I "just brought my babies home, took care of them, told them right from wrong, and absolutely loved them and love being their mother".

These days, with my children grown, I do a lot of writing online and/or visiting sites where discussions take place. So often, there are mothers who write questions about "how to discipline" a seven-month-old or how to get a one-year-old to listen. Young mothers post questions about letting babies cry themselves to sleep, getting eighteen-month-olds to stop hitting other toddlers in day care, and ten-year-olds who tell lies. There are thousands (maybe millions) of questions and discussions about all the problems babies and children are to their parents. Much of the time, responses to those questions are in numbers that far exceed the number of questions; and so often the responses run along the lines of, "smack him", "let him cry it out", "don't spoil him", and "he just wants attention."

Sometimes I picture the joy that takes place when a new baby is born and brought home, surrounded by pink or blue balloons, ribbons, baby clothes, and nursery wallpapers; and then I think about how, sometimes as soon as two or three months later, parents are online asking what's wrong with their baby or even "how to discipline". Many parents are so afraid that if they pick their baby up when he cries today he'll "turn out to be a demanding person" when he grows up. Parents are often afraid that if they give in to their frustrated two-year-old once in a while "he'll learn that's how to get what he wants". The trouble is often that parents learn a set of "parenting rules" that generally make sense, but much of the time they don't bother to learn that there are different rules for different stages of development. There are times when I do wonder if all would be better off not reading any of the books, or listening to anyone's expert (or presumed expert) advice; and instead just following one's common sense and respect for the child as an individual human being.

In spite of the fact that I did read child development books and did make sure I developed my parenting philosophy/principles before having my family, I, like my my mother, did "just make sure I wanted my babies" and then "just brought them home, loved them, told them right from wrong, and took good care of them".

Something else my mother used to say was this: "People seem to forget that just because babies and little children are small, that doesn't mean they aren't little human beings, just like they are. I'd like to see some parents have someone bigger than they do some of the things they do to their little kids." Having been a parent now for more than two decades, I'd add to those remarks my own; which is, so often, parents expect from children what they, themselves (even as adults) don't do.

My tips for raising "great" kids involve remembering:

Remember that your child - no matter how tiny - is a little human being, just the way you are a human being.

Remember to treat your child the way you would want someone to treat you.

Remember how it felt to be a child.

Remember how it felt the day you had your newborn baby (or brought home your adopted baby), and remember how blessed and thankful you were. Remember how awed you were, as well.

Remember that you must be the kind of person you hope your child will turn out to be.

Remember that everyone, including children, messes up sometimes; and that doesn't necessarily mean they are evil, disturbed, or destined to continue to repeat the behavior.

Remember that different developmental stages require different approaches, and that the same rules don't apply to children of all ages.

Remember to use your own common sense when parenting.

Remember to trust your own judgment, your own knowledge of your child, and your own awareness that breaking one rule today (whether your child breaks it, or you do) does not mean a lifetime of breaking that same rule.

Remember to meet your child's emotional needs.

Remember that you are your child's world, even as his world continues to expand and include others.

Remember to enjoy being with your child and to be someone your child enjoys being with (and that doesn't mean not telling him right from wrong; it just means being pleasant and reasonable when you assert your rightful parental authority).

Remember that genuine love must include respect and admiration; and if you don't have respect and admiration for your child you are not loving him the way children need parents to love them.

Remember that "discipline" is about teaching right from wrong, which is very different from "punishing".

A final note related to that last tip:

When I was going through the adoption screening process, a social worker was asking about my own childhood and parents. She asked how my parents "disciplined" me and my siblings. After having long-winded responses to all her other questions, I was, for the first time during the interview, silent, as I tried to think up what to say. Finally, I said, "I don't think they really disciplined us at all. They just told us right from wrong, and if we did something they just talked about it." I was thinking, at the time, this didn't seem like a very good answer to give a social worker, but I didn't have another one that would be an honest one. Still, that interview got me to the next step in the adoption process.

When I did become a mother, I wasn't thinking about discipline because each child starts out, of course, as a baby. Instead, I just took it a day a time, teaching each child each lesson when I knew he was old enough to understand that particular right from wrong. What I discovered was that, for the most part, teaching them when they are capable of understanding the reasoning behind each "rule" most often results in their following that rule. On the relatively rare occasion when a child would intentionally disregard a rule, a reasonable and fair consequence was effective; and for older children, natural consequences were often the most effective.

Even so, I suspect if my children were today asked how they were "disciplined" in childhood, they may be as without an easy reply as I was when I was asked the same thing.

Having "great" kids is sometimes a matter of realizing that most children are quite capable of being "great" kids; but, more importantly, seeing the "great" kid that one's child already is

"Great" kids happen when parents believe in the "goodness" of their child, rather than when they're always on the look-out for the negative things. They happen when parents understand that no person is perfect, and that an immature person is even less perfect sometimes. "Great" kids happen when they see themselves in the eyes of parents who love, admire, and see so much good in them they don't want to see disappointment in those eyes instead.

Sometimes - when I see all those young mothers online, complaining about all the problems their babies and children have or are - I do kind of think that, perhaps, everyone ought to abandon all the parenting books and DVD's and groups; and just learn to plain, old, absolutely love and adore their baby or child. That may not guarantee that a child will grow up to be the kind of "great" that cures dreaded diseases or builds world peace; but I think most of the time it is close to a guarantee that babies will turn into well behaved, happy, kind, children who generally make parenting pure pleasure.

Back when my mother made that almost-scornful remark about parenting books and groups, I, in my "infinite wisdom", thought she was being a little "dark ages" to see so little value in the widespread, available, parenting information. Today, with my child-rearing years behind me, I can see that any wisdom I ever had when it came to being a mother did not come from any books and instead came through my parents' example.

When we define "great" as being kind, loving, generally socially acceptable, and non-aggressive people; it's easy to have "great" kids just by being a good example.

As someone who never hit my children, and as someone who had children who were known to be very well behaved wherever they were, I have always believed that hitting children is not necessary and that the only people who need to hit their children are people who have not adequately helped children become very reasonable people by the time they're as young as two years old. I know this sounds harsh, but I have listened to pro-hitting parents over the course of the 30 years since I first became a mother; and it just seems it may be time to just tell it like it is.

When you are responsive to your babies and make them feel very secure and very treasured, and when you talk to them in little ways even when they're newborns, they become very attacked, their verbal skills develop earlier than some kids' do, and they generally want to please their mother and father once they get to be about eighteen months old. Better verbal skills mean they understand better when a parent says, "Ooh - don't touch the stove. It will burn you." The better verbals and reasoning skills and the wish to please that comes from having parents who try to keep a child happy and secure at all times combine to make teaching right and wrong easy and without need for hitting. Hitting teaches children that people hit, which usually isn't what we want children to learn. It may be temporarily effective for keeping a toddler away from the stove, but he is less likely to be receptive to any messages about how a stove can burn when those messages come from a person who has hit him.

Reasoning and communicating do not go hand-in-hand with hitting other people, and teaching children reasoning and communicating while teaching them not to hit other people and that violence in a home is wrong are what most parents hope to accomplish.

Older children may be threatened by someone bigger than they are in a house where hitting is seen as the only way to teach a child, but I can assure you that older children are pretty intelligent and don't have to be too intelligent or too old to realize that the parent who has run out of ammunition in his arsenal of parenting abilities and has nothing left but to hit a child is a parent who does not respect them, understand them, or have sufficient parenting skills to make children feel they can look up to them. Parents who hit their children send the message that only they have the right to hit their children, and even that sends a message to children that parents believe that have respect their children.

One of my favorite verses is, "Children Learn What They Live" by Dorothy Law Nolte.
If we want to teach children to respect themselves and others they need to live with being treated with respect.

There is never a good reason to hit a toddler or preschooler who is only being how old he is and forgetting some rule. There is never a reason to punish a very young child who hit a playmate in frustration by an adult's hitting him. Hitting older children may actually result in their always harboring a small amount of hatred for their parent; or else, they will grow up believing that being a parent and an adult means hitting children and that they deserved to be hit as children, just as they may raise their own children to grow up believing they "deserved it".

People who don't know how to raise a child to be reasonable and to want to comply with some basic, reasonable, rules their parents set will never be convinced that hitting a child is wrong or that their parenting technique is inferior. That's fine. I'm not the one who has kids who needed to be hit and who didn't behave or who grew up to be slightly or very emotionally "off" people.

Parents who don't hit their kids often don't want to sound impolite or obnoxious and speak up about what they think of parents who do. Enough is enough. I've decided to talk.

Note: I have one adopted son and two biological children, so it isn't "well behaved" genes; and my kids were active, athletic, and plenty bright and independent; so it isn't that they were "passive" or "too stupid".

The only thing prenatal classes should teach about discipline is that it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) come into play until a child is old enough to understand the concept of not following the rules.

Time and time again I have run into parenting sites where parents ask questions about disciplining their six-month old or their one-year-old. It's as if these well intentioned parents have been considering all the child-rearing issues parents face, without understanding that parents don't face all parenting issues the day the baby is born. It's always sensible for parents to plan out how they will deal with issues as they arise. What is not so sensible, however, is for parents to plan out their approach to issues associated with one level of development - and then begin applying their preferred approach to a problem before there is ever a problem.

Too many parents don't understand that the ten-month old who keeps heading for the electrical outlet is not the same as the four-year-old who talks back to his mother. The ten-month old who keeps going back to the outlet is just interested in it. There is the argument that he will need to learn not to touch "off-limits" things in the house, and that's true. A baby of this age can actually be discouraged from touching something "off-limits" when an adult simply keeps taking him away from it and saying, "no", but this seemingly effective "discipline approach" really only works through a process of conditioning. A baby of this age doesn't understand why he's not supposed to touch the outlet, and he doesn't understand the concepts of "off-limits for a reason" or "rules".

One-year-olds dump the contents of their bowls over their heads, pick apart their disposable diapers at the expense of having a soil-free crib, and even smack their parents' faces because they like the reaction they get. Objectionable as such behaviors can be, the "guilty" one-year-old only noticed how much a bowl can look like a hat, only discovered that his diaper can be picked into interesting shreds, and only discovered that he can do something to make his parents react in shock. He wasn't being devious or cruel, and he certainly had no concept about proper social behavior and rule-breaking.

In the first two years of a child's life discipline isn't something parents need to think much about. In those first two years it's all more a matter of heading off the things babies and toddlers are most likely going to do; or else not over-reacting those times when the baby or toddler manages to do one of those objectionable things.

When toddlers get closer to two (earlier for the developmentally advanced, later for late-bloomers) they can understand more, but not everything, when it comes to behavior and rules. A two-year-old may easily understand not to pick up the cat a certain way because it will hurt the cat. He may understand that there is a rule about not touching electrical outlets. There are, however, still a lot of concepts and facts he is not capable of understanding. To further contribute to the two-year-old's day-to-day misdeeds, there is the fact that children of this age are not emotionally able to handle some of the frustrations they face, and they are too young to have enough self-control to stop themselves from doing some things.

Children this age need lots of understanding and lots of supervision. They need parents to keep talking about "what nice children do" and "why we don't want to hurt the kitty". Still, their misdeeds are not, for the most part, the result of a conscious decision to break a rule. As with younger toddlers and babies, parents shouldn't just accept unacceptable acts happily. Still, discipline beyond simply preventing or stopping a two-year-old is not called for. Discipline for a child of this age is about telling him what should and shouldn't be done, but it's also about essentially being the conscience and control of which he is not yet capable of exercising himself.

Three-year-olds are generally pretty pleasant people. They've gotten used to being people, and they've developed a certain amount of control and understanding. Children this age usually are "in love with" their parents and other close adults and usually want very much to please them. Children this age, of course, still need a lot of supervision. Without it they will get themselves into trouble. Generally, the right degree of supervision, right amount of individual attention, and sufficient amount of yet more talking about "what nice children do" is enough to keep a three-year-old relatively free of misdeeds. Three-year-olds tend to be people who have a lot accidents, like spilling milk, stopping up the toilet with too much tissue, and throwing the ball that knocks over a lamp. Most three-year-olds want to please and don't want to disappoint. Most feel shame over things like spilling milk. In other words, most three-year-olds are not doing a lot of consciously planned bad deeds and having evil intentions.

At four years old children reach a point in development when they are usually quite capable of understanding rules and the reasons for those rules. As of this writing (April 1, 2008), I have just finished watching an ABC Nightline episode that dealt with four-year-olds demonstrating their increasing development through lying. The program noted that younger children tend to be bluntly honest, but at four children are developing the ability to grasp a number of more advanced concepts. The four-year-old who does something he shouldn't do usually knew, when he did it, that it was wrong. This is when the matter of discipline, that goes beyond just teaching right from wrong through talking, should and must become an issue for parents.

Many parents could benefit from having preschool programs send newsletters and other information about discipline of children four years old and beyond.

As for prenatal classes, if these classes are to expand their training to include matters beyond delivery, many mothers and babies would benefit if these classes taught new mothers how to make their babies feel safe and secure; because along with all those online parents who ask about disciplining their babies, there are an awful lot of them who seem to have trouble getting their babies to stop crying. If prenatal classes taught new mothers how to make their babies feel supremely secure and safe a whole lot of problems that are interpreted as "discipline" issues in babies would be eliminated.

I'm not someone who underestimates the importance of discipline for children over preschool age, or the importance of stopping a toddler from doing something unacceptable. It's just that
I've observed that very often the people who seem misguided and/or preoccupied with disciplining babies are, in their own adult lives, not always the most disciplined people, themselves. These are often parents who have made more than the usual share of mistakes in their own lives and who have vowed either that their children will not make the same ones, or that they will not make mistakes in rearing their children.

For anyone who believes that discipline should be taught in prenatal classes, it may make sense to consider giving babies the kind of understanding that so many errant adults would like the world to give them when they've done something they shouldn't really have done.

Children are one thing. Babies and toddlers are another. If people know the difference they will realize that discipline is not a subject to be taught in prenatal classes.

When it comes to a form of government in my family, I can't say I've run my family like a democracy, monarchy or any other form of government. I've more modeled my family after a corporation with a CEO (me) and with different departments. Of course, a family is so much more scaled down from a corporation the CEO is far more involved with the managing of all the departments, but I have been the one to essentially found this corporation I head, and I've been the one to have reorganization when necessary.

My corporation, of course, uses outside professional services or contractors when necessary. It operates within the framework of having an accounts receivables and payable department. There is a facilities department, education department, health services department (which includes medical, dental, and optical sub-departments), and meals-services department. There is a budget for capital expenditures as well. My corporation has resident's facilities, as well as guest facilities. It has a strategic planning department, public relations department, and communications department. There is also a technologies department, as well as a pet-care department.

Most importantly, there are the people within my corporation. As they have grown within the corporation I have found that offering them opportunities for advancement, as well as delegating responsibility to them, has resulted in the growth and prosperity of my corporation. Although over the next several quarters my corporation has no plans to include subsidiaries, forecasting reports and feasibility studies show that acquiring subsidiaries in the future is likely.

As leader and mentor of my tiny corporation it has been my hope to share with my people a strong foundation and the framework of life as an individual in order to assure that each individual within my corporation reaches our long-term goal of establishing himself or herself as a separate corporation over which he can preside with love, care, pride and integrity.

(And this has been the speech I'll never get to give to any stockholders because I'm the only stockholder in my tiny but thriving corporation.)

From the time my children (three of them) were infants I enjoyed them, adored them, and spent a lot of time with them. I tried to think of myself as the leader of a team that was made up of the four of us. Someone has to be a leader. I was the mother. That meant I was also the leader. Nothing else would have made sense.

The children knew I was fun to be with, understanding, and very nice to them. They also knew, however, that I had reasonable rules about behavior and expected them to understand those rules were reasonable. I would point out that some behaviors create problems for the person who engages in them and some make life difficult for others.

Other than distracting a one-year-old from something he or she wanted to do because he or she was too young to understand any safety or social rules, I never used time-out and didn't use hitting as a way to get my ideas across.

The children just kind of knew that I was "the leader" because, I guess, of the way I presented any of the rules; or else they just saw the sense in certain rules and were reasonable enough to abide them. Once in a while I did use the occasional "knock it off" (on an older child who was in a mood to tease, and who knew he'd kept it up for awhile and thought it was funny) in a low, no-nonsense, firm, voice .

Sometimes there is just something to be said for being a leader, occasionally saying "knock it off", and refusing to "la di da" and "hem and haw" and "nicey nice" children. Children want and need someone who will be a leader, and they enjoy having someone they can count on to tell them what's right and wrong and set a few rules.
Sometimes "time out" can just be a little too wishy-washy and not even understood by the youngest offenders, but physical punishment is the greatest sign of weakness parents can show.

The best way to have children turn out to be responsible adults may be to be a very responsible adult, so they see what a responsible adult does.

So often I've heard parents talk about how they insist that their children do household chores "so they'll learn to be responsible". Sometimes these are even chores the parents have decided they, themselves, will no longer do because "the children need to learn". I'm not "anti-chores" when the matter is handled in a way that is reasonable; but sometimes parents require children to do the very chores they, the parents - whose responsibility those chores are - won't do them!

The parent who sits on the couch behind a newspaper every evening, rather than spending time with the children or even doing housework, is showing children that when people grow up they don't need to do what someone else wishes they would. The parent who sits and talks to another parent (or on the cell phone) at the park and gets so engrossed in conversation may not notice if her child needs something. I'm not saying parents shouldn't socialize, but we've all seen people not noticing the children because of being too busy in conversation with an adult. These same parents may try to teach their children that "there is a time and place for things".

When kids see their parents doing all kinds of things the kids wouldn't want to do (getting up to make breakfast for everyone else, paying bills, calling the plumber, fixing the roof, walking the dog in the middle of the night, etc.) they often not only start to see that this what being an adult is, but they also may admire their parents for doing all the things they do. (I think kids need to see that being adult can also mean having fun sometimes, but that's a topic for another day.)

When children have parents who act very responsibly, and when, as part of acting responsibly parents also talk to children all throughout their childhoods about why one thing or another is important, there's a good chance children grow up to be apples that didn't fall far from the tree.

There is one other factor that could play a role in which children grow up to be responsible adults; and that is when children have childhoods that are pretty carefree and secure, and parents who assure that their children's childhoods are safeguarded, the children often grow up not missing anything and more than ready to take on their own adult responsibilities when the time comes. It is at least possible that children who miss too much of what children need from childhood may grow up still wanting to hang onto to their childhood in some way and not too interested in anything they may view as a burden.

http://www.educarer.com/brain.htm