Queen Essays

Teens Who Hurt: Clinical Interventions to Break the Cycle of Adolescent Violence

Hardy, Kenneth V.; Laszloffy, Tracey A.

Hardy, K. V., & Laszloffy, T. A. (2013).  Teens Who Hurt. Guilford Publications, Inc..  https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781462512423

Read: Hardy & Laszloffy:

Chapter 3 Disruption of Community

The dark circles under Carmen’s eyes reflected her recent ordeal. She had passed out in the elevator of her dormitory, the result of massive consumption of alcohol mixed with prescription drugs. She was rushed to the hospital, where her stomach was pumped. Several days later, she sat in our office looking frail and forlorn.

“I don’t think I was trying to kill myself, but I think it would be better if I had died.”

Carmen’s sense of hopelessness and despair filled the small therapy room. By most measures, her life was full of potential and hope. She possessed intelligence, beauty, charm, and came from a loving and secure family. It was hard to understand why a girl who had so much to live for would feel better off if she were dead.

Carmen’s physical beauty was captivating. Even in spite of the trauma she had recently endured, her smooth brown skin, sculpted cheekbones, and chocolate brown eyes were striking. But there was more to Carmen than her radiant physical beauty. She was gentle, authentic, and a bright student with a near perfect academic record. She had a loving family who adored her. Both her parents and her older sister seemed devastated by Carmen’s overdose. They had vowed to do whatever they could to support Carmen and help her recover.

Despite the many positive things that Carmen had in her favor, she was plagued by an inner pain that was driving her to self-destruction. We needed to peel back the layers and see the suffering that hid just beyond the pretty picture that the outside world saw. Once we did this, we discovered that Carmen was haunted by a profound disruption to her sense of community.

DEFINING COMMUNITY

Our work with violent adolescents has helped us to appreciate how the disruption of community is a key aggravating factor underpinning adolescent violence. Before describing the impact of the disruption of community on teens, we think it’s important to spend some time clarifying what we mean when we use the term “community.”

Defining the concept of community is difficult because everyone has an idea of what the term means, yet a clear, concrete definition remains somewhat elusive. Whenever we ask people to share with us their image of what community is, the responses we get are often general and vague. Typical responses include “a group of people united by a common interest,” “a group of people who live in a specific area,” “a group of people who share a common racial, ethnic, or religious identity and are bonded together on this basis,” and “a physical place, like a community center, where people can come together and just hang out.” These definitions touch upon important aspects of what community is, and yet they fail to reflect the emotional, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of community. These definitions do not represent the part of community that involves feelings—feelings of belonging, rootedness, identity, connection, safety, security, familiarity, caring, and hope.

Through our work with violent adolescents, we have developed a view of community that emphasizes both its physical, tangible dimensions and its emotional, psychological, and spiritual ones. In short, we believe community is a “place” where adolescents feel a sense of belonging and connection with others in a special way. It’s a place where they learn about who they are. It’s where they begin to develop a sense of identity and a vision of how they “fit” in the world around them. Community is a place where adolescents can find answers to life’s many difficult and complicated questions. It is a place where adolescents find comfort when they are overcome with despair, a place where they feel accepted. It is a community that provides adolescents with a sense of safety, security, and meaningful relatedness with others. It is “in community” that teens derive the comfort and familiarity that comes from being surrounded and protected by others who care about them. Community provides a buffer against the trials and tribulations of life. It can foster tremendous resiliency in the face of enormous adversity. It nurtures pro-social development by acting as an incubator for the cultivation of qualities such as compassion, caring, cooperation, collaboration, and conscience. Community is “home.”

When teens have a strong sense of community, it serves as a buffer against devaluation. Conversely, where there is an absence or a disruption in community, adolescents are more vulnerable to the trauma of devaluation. In fact, the disruption or erosion of community in the lives of young people can, in and of itself, constitute a form of devaluation.

DISRUPTION OF COMMUNITY

Among adolescents who become violent, the disruption of community is almost always evident. To the extent that community is a synonym for home, violent teens suffer from a chronic state of “psychological homelessness” (Hardy, 1997). Their existence is ravaged by an existential alienation that cuts deep into the core of their being, wounding every dimension of their person. The disruption of community in the lives of adolescents robs them of the security, connectedness, acceptance, and identity that they desperately need. When their sense of community is disrupted, something basic to their humanity is deeply wounded.

With the disruption of community, many of the positive qualities that community nurtures are disrupted as well, such as a sense of compassion and caring for others. It is through community that people learn how to care for others, how to cooperate and collaborate, and how to negotiate the complications that accompany being connected to others in a meaningful way. When teens suffer from a disruption of community, their acquisition of these important relational skills is assaulted. Is it any wonder then that so many adolescents struggle with forming caring attachments? Is it a surprise that some of them seem to lack altogether a sense of conscience? After all, when a person suffers from an absence of community, he or she also suffers from an absence of conscience. The two go hand in hand. In the case of Timothy Ryan, for example, the disruptions in his sense of community created corresponding cracks in his capacity to relate empathetically to others. Because he felt as if he had been abandoned and betrayed within his family, he experienced the world as a rejecting place. He did not perceive others as recognizing or responding in caring ways to his feelings and needs. As a result, he not only became narcissistically consumed with his own needs, but he also did not learn how to recognize and respond with caring or compassion to others’ feelings or needs. Had he had a more secure sense of community growing up, he would have felt the comfort of his parents nurturing him. Because that was not his reality, his capacity for empathy was not cultivated, leading to the type of absence of conscience that enabled him to look into the eyes of his victims and beat them mercilessly. It was the absence of conscience that made it possible for him to feel the breath of the girl on his face, and feel her heartbeat pressed against his body, to hear her cries echoing in his ear while he raped her remorselessly. It was the absence of conscience that made all of this possible. To be alienated from community is to be alienated from one’s humanity, and when this occurs, the potential for violence increases dramatically.

Adolescents who suffer from disruptions of their sense of community also experience the most deadly consequence of all—a loss of hope. It is through community that a sense of hope is created. Community provides adolescents with a sense of their past as well as a vision for their future. James Garbarino (1999) talks about the “lack of a future orientation,” which is common among violent teens. We believe that chronic massive disruptions in one’s sense of community assault one’s capacity to have a future orientation. Those who don’t feel connected to others lack a sense of rootedness and, hence, a feeling of relatedness to their historical ties. Without this, they also lack a meaningful identification with a future. A future orientation requires a connection to one’s past, which feeds a vision for one’s future. Our roots—both the bitter and the sweet ones—give birth to our dreams, and ultimately ignite a sense of purpose. They inspire us to have something for which to strive, hope, and aspire. All of these “essentials to our being” are provided and nurtured in community. Adolescents who have suffered profound disruptions to their sense of community suffer from a deprivation of hope and vision regarding their future.

LEVELS OF COMMUNITY

There are three levels of community that adolescents participate in that are vital to their growth and development. We have noted, among adolescents who become violent, that they suffer from the disruption of community on at least two, and usually all three, levels. It seems to be this cumulative impact of disruption at more than one level that puts teens most at risk for violence.

At the first level are primary communities, which refer to families, however one defines family. We realize that calling a family a community defies popular notions of the term “community.” Few people think of families when they use the term community, and yet all of the properties that are typically associated with community apply to families. For example, families are groups of people who are united in a special way and who share a common interest. It is in families that individuals experience their first sense of belonging to something that is greater than themselves. It is in families where people get their first sense of rootedness and connection. This is where one’s initial identity is established. Families—at least when they are healthy—are places that individuals can turn to find comfort, acceptance, and a feeling of “home.” So, while it may be unconventional, we believe that families are the first community, the “primary community.”

Just beyond the level of primary communities are extended communities, which include neighborhoods, schools, churches, synagogues, temples, civic groups, community centers, and so forth. Extended communities most closely approximate conventional views of what community represents. Hence, it is fairly easy to relate to this level of community. Within extended communities people experience a sense of themselves as connected to a clearly defined group that exists beyond their families. Such groups exist at the local level, in the sense that the borders of the community are clearly identifiable. The other distinguishing characteristic of extended communities is that they are usually connected to physical locations (e.g., schools, houses of worship, community centers).

The third level consists of cultural communities. This refers to the communities that adolescents have membership in on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, social class, sexual orientation, mental/physical ability, and religion. Like extended communities, cultural communities also extend an individual’s identity beyond his or her family. However, unlike the situation with extended communities, cultural communities have intangible borders. It is within the cultural community that boys and girls, for example, learn what it means, at least according to society, to be a “boy” or “girl.” Obviously, some of this socialization occurs within primary and extended communities, but it has been our experience that the larger portion of this get refined within the cultural community. We don’t wish to imply here that the dynamics of the cultural community are limited to gender socialization. The scope and impact of the cultural community are broad. It is through this level of community, for example, that we, as human beings, get acutely acquainted with ourselves through the prisms of class, race, ethnicity, and so forth.

FORCES THAT DISRUPT COMMUNITY

There are many different forces that can disrupt community at all levels. Some of these influences are discussed below for each level of community.

Disruption of Primary Communities

The basic building block of a sense of community at the primary level consists of parent–child relationships. There are several ways in which parent–child relationships are disrupted.

Abuse

Parental abuse of children and adolescents profoundly disrupts the parent–child bond. One of the serious dangers of abuse is that it teaches young people directly that violence is acceptable. Abusive parents convey the message that it is okay to use force, domination, and aggression to solve problems, to control others, and to express feelings like anger and frustration. While not all abused children and adolescents are doomed to become abusers themselves, or to utilize tactics of aggression to handle everyday living, the risk of these tendencies is higher among those who are victims of violence and aggression.

In some perverse way, many children and adolescents “prefer” abuse to neglect because at least, with abuse, there is a form of acknowledgment that they exist. This was personified for us by a boy who told us, “I know he hits me [referring to his father], but he don’t really mean any harm . . . It’s just who he is, and I know he hits me ’cause he cares.” While the abuse was obviously painful and destructive, at least it was a form of acknowledgment to this boy that his father noticed him. With neglect, no such acknowledgment exists. Such parents wound their children by denying them altogether.

Of course, the “acknowledgment” that comes with abuse is dysfunctional. It’s more akin to how a person might recognize a chair rather than recognizing another human being. It’s possible to see and recognize a chair, to even devote some energy toward interacting with it (i.e., sitting in it), but there is nothing inherent in the interaction that acknowledges that the chair has feelings, rights, or needs. The chair is simply an object, a thing that is there to serve. So, while abusive parents provide some cursory acknowledgment of their children’s existence, the acknowledgment occurs through aggression and trauma, which translates into a deeper level of emotional and psychological neglect and abandonment.

Neglect

Neglect consists of ignoring children and adolescents and, therefore, failing to provide them with essential physical, emotional, and/or psychological sustenance. This can occur overtly, as with parents who physically abandon and thus neglect their kids in every way possible. It also can occur covertly, as in the case of parents who remain physically present but still neglect their children’s emotional, psychological, and physical needs to varying degrees. When parents neglect their kids, they are in effect denying their children’s very existence. As one severely neglected 12-year-old client told us during a therapy session, “My mom doesn’t notice me at all. I could be dead and she wouldn’t notice.” When kids experience this level of rejection, not only do they suffer from a disruption of their primary-level community, but they also suffer from devaluation. Another example of neglect was depicted in the movie Harold and Maude. The film portrays a young boy who is virtually ignored by his mother. In his desperation to get his mother to notice him, he goes to absurd lengths, including an attempt to hang himself in her presence. Because his mother is incapable of acknowledging her son’s existence, even this extreme act fails to capture her attention. Even in the face of his obvious attempt at asphyxiation, she speaks to him about something irrelevant and superficial. Clearly, his mother does not actually see him. The casual, nonaffected comment she utters is grossly inappropriate in light of Harold’s behavior. The message within the message is “You, Harold, are totally invisible to me. I don’t see you at all. You don’t exist in my world.” Harold is a classic child of neglect, and it requires little effort to see the ways in which this neglect is highly devaluing.

The topic of neglect is complicated because the neglect can be manifested in different ways and to varying degrees. The reality is that a large majority of parents have direct contact with their children, either in terms of living in the same household or speaking with and having their children visit with them on a regular basis. Most parents have a physical presence in their kids’ lives. Similarly, most parents also attend to their child’s basic physical needs. Yet, there are more subtle forms of neglect that can have damaging consequences for young people, such as emotional neglect. Fathers in particular are prone to being emotionally neglectful. For example, parents who work extended hours may provide for their kids, but by virtue of their demanding work schedules, fail to be emotionally available. This may have been a dynamic that affected both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. While both boys lived within “intact” two-parent family households where their parents were attentive to their physical needs, they may have been emotionally neglected. The fact that there seemed to be little parental awareness of the warning signs (e.g., extended isolated hours spent in their basements constructing bombs, the rage and alienation they experienced at school) that both boys emitted prior to their killing spree suggests a lack of meaningful connection between them and their parents.

It also is common for loving, devoted parents to inadvertently hurt their kids by failing to recognize and encourage their strengths, by failing to display affection, or by making comments or statements that, while intended to be corrective and helpful, have the consequence of disturbing or disrupting their fragile sense of self-esteem. For example, we recently had a parent in therapy who told her 13-year-old daughter, “I’d better not find you snacking on those cookies. Your weight is getting totally out of control.” While the comment was motivated by concern for the daughter, it had a devastating impact on the girl’s already low sense of self-regard.

Despite the fact that we live in a increasingly diverse society, most people still think of a “normal family” as “the 1950s image of a white, affluent, nuclear family headed by a breadwinner/father and supported by a full-time homemaker/mother” (Walsh, 1998, p. 15). Therefore, when we see families that match this image, we tend to assume that these families are “normal” and “healthy.” We give these families the benefit of the doubt. Rarely if ever do we look beneath the surface to see what’s really happening on the inside of the family. For the most part, we are deceived by the structure of the family, and fail to consider the emotional quality of the family relationships. As a result, it is sometimes hard to recognize how these families might be failing to provide children and adolescents with a strong, stable primary community. This became clear for us when we were presenting a workshop on violent adolescents to a group of therapists. In the middle of our presentation we were interrupted by a woman from the audience who was visibly irritated with our ideas. She said to us:

“I’m having a hard time with what you’re saying. I don’t think that all kids who become problem kids are suffering from a disruption of community. I work in a school, and I’m thinking of the family of a boy in our school. He’s a troubled boy, to say the least, but there isn’t really any good reason for it. He has community all around him. Our school is one of the best in the county. And he comes from a good family. He’s got his mother and father and his grandparents living with him. He is surrounded by people who are committed to raising him well. But in spite of all that he acts up all the time. I think it’s just who he is. Sometimes, kids are just trouble. That’s it.”

As we continued to seek more information from this woman, she eventually disclosed that she thought this little boy probably had a hearing disability, but she could not find out for sure because his parents would not authorize hearing tests. She explained that the father was a “fire-and-brimstone” preacher who did not believe in interfering with God’s plan. If his son had difficulty in hearing, so be it. The boy’s mother had been treated for depression, which was so severe that on one occasion she had to be hospitalized when this boy was only 4 years old. We cite this example because it illustrates nicely how our biases about what a “good” family looks like can sometimes make it hard to see when a family is failing to provide a stable community for a child. As was the case with this little boy, while his parents were physically present, they seemed to be completely absent emotionally, which no doubt disrupted his sense of primary community.

Sometimes the disruption of primary community can be subtle and hard to detect outright. There is ample evidence to suggest, for example, that Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was a man who suffered from severe disruption of community beginning at infancy; however, some of the disruptions were not readily obvious at first glance. To begin with, after only a few weeks of life, little Ted became ill and was hospitalized for several months. In accordance with standard hospital protocol during the 1950s, he was placed in an isolation unit, where he was deprived of all contact with his family. This severely undermined the development of a stable sense of community at the primary level. In fact, the only human contact Ted had during his months of hospitalization was via the sterile and perfunctory tasks that were administered by nurses who changed his diapers, fed him, and performed various medical procedures. The months during his illness and hospitalization disrupted Ted’s primary community during a critical period of his development. Extensive bonding and attachment studies have since demonstrated how vital it is to have consistent physical and emotional nurturance from a primary caretaker during the early stages of life. These early experiences provide the template upon which all future connections and relationships are based. Infants who are deprived of consistent, loving contact with a primary caretaker fail to develop the secure attachments that are a prerequisite for healthy relationship formation and development in later life.

In Ted’s case, it seemed that the early disruption of his primary community had taken its toll. His mother reported that the child she had known prior to the illness was vastly different from the child who returned home after many months in the hospital. A once happy and smiley baby had become distant, introverted, and withdrawn. There was a newfound distance and disconnection between mother and son that had not existed prior to Ted’s illness and subsequent hospitalization. Moreover, the strains that now existed between Ted and his family never really improved with time. It seemed that Ted had suffered tragic effects of the disruption of his primary community in infancy, which may have disrupted bonding and attachment during a critical period of development, thereby contributing to future patterns of isolation and disconnection.

Throughout childhood, Ted’s intellect was indisputable, as was his lack of social engagement. Having few friends, he spent most of his time alone reading scientific magazines, studying math, and exploring the outdoors. When there is an absence of community early in life, one is deprived of critical opportunities to acquire and refine basic life skills, which then becomes a detriment to the establishment and maintenance of community later in life. In Ted’s case, as an undergraduate at Harvard his patterns toward social isolation persisted. Stemming from the absence of community during his earlier years, he had failed to develop basic life skills, including how to connect and relate to others socially. Hence, he had few, if any, friends and was regarded by his peers as a loner. Despite his obvious intellectual brilliance he remained socially awkward and disconnected throughout his life, which was exemplified by his frequent retreats to his wilderness cabin in Montana. Ted lived a quiet, rugged, back-to-the-basics existence for months at a time, completely isolated from other human beings.

Although Ted Kaczynski’s 18-year-long spree of violence did not begin during his adolescence, his life provides an excellent illustration of the relationship that often exists between the disruption of community (for even its absence) and violence. Ted’s capacity to commit cold, calculated acts of violence against his fellow human beings was inevitably facilitated by his general alienation from and lack of meaningful connections with others. In light of the socioemotional vacuum that Ted lived in, it requires minimal effort to see how he was able to hurt other living beings with so little regard for the suffering he caused.

Separation/Divorce

Parental separation and divorce are other common ways in which children experience the disruption of their primary community. Depending upon how parents handle their separation or divorce, the experience can contribute greatly to the children’s feeling neglected, abandoned, and/or abused. The fact that 75% of children rarely see the noncustodial parent after their parents’ divorce equates to neglect and abandonment in the minds of many children. Moreover, when couples undergo bitter, vicious divorces, children often are caught in the crossfire between warring parties, which is abusive. Their unfortunate position in the middle of their parents’ hostility means that children hear one or both parents say ugly things about the other. Some parents also use their children as pawns and bargaining chips in their battles. When this occurs, it is devastating to children because it reduces them to objects and neglects their needs.

Death

Finally, the death of a parent is another way in which community at the primary level can be disrupted. Following the death of a parent, children and adolescents often feel abandoned. Except in the case of suicide, parents who die do not intentionally leave their children. But for those kids who no longer have their parents around to nurture and guide them, they often feel as if they have been abandoned.

It was during our third session with Carmen that we learned the story of her childhood and how she had lost both of her birth parents in a brutal attack. Carmen was born to José and Maya Santiago, a young couple who lived in a small village in Peru. When Carmen was 6 years old, her parents were killed by guerrillas of the Shining Path. “I don’t remember my parents dying. I just remember being in an orphanage and crying for my mother. I remember feeling so lonely.” The death of Carmen’s parents disrupted her primary community beyond repair. While her parents were not responsible for their death, to 6-year-old Carmen, their loss was experienced as abandonment. According to Carmen, the next year that she spent living in an orphanage “was the loneliest, most empty year of my life. I felt abandoned in a cold, ugly world without anyone to love and comfort me.”

Disruption of Extended Communities

Extended communities can be disrupted by external factors, such as harsh economic conditions, or by internal factors that undermine the solidarity and direction of a group. Many urban schools, for example, are disrupted by a lack of access to economic resources, which undermines their capacity to create nurturing, healthy, progressive environments for students (Kozol, 1991). In other cases, an organization like a church or community center might experience a disruption of community rooted in destructive internal politics that leads to struggles for power and sabotages a strong sense of cohesiveness, positive spirit, and community among the congregation or staff.

When the guerrillas of the Shining Path attacked the village that Carmen had been born and raised in, not only was her primary community brutally destroyed, but also her extended one as well. When she was placed within the orphanage that was miles from her village, she mourned for her parents and for the many people who had loved and cared for her. She was robbed of the hugs she used to look forward to from the women who sat with her mother. She was robbed of the laughter she enjoyed during the large communal celebrations. She was robbed of a sense of connection to a collective who was not her family but whom she loved and relied upon nonetheless.

Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, are another way in which extended communities can be disrupted. When hurricane Andrew hit south Florida in 1991, it wiped out entire neighborhoods. Nature’s wrath did not distinguish between the mansions inhabited by the wealthy and the trailers that were home to the poor. The force of nature leveled extended communities, irrespective of socioeconomic standing, and left everyone with the painful task of having to rebuild from the rumble.

Outcast Status as Disruption of Community at the Extended Level

The previous examples have all considered how entire extended communities can be disrupted, which clearly has a damaging effect upon adolescents who have membership in these communities. It also is possible for a teen to experience a much more personal sense of disruption of community at the extended level. Before Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold waged their brutal attack, Columbine High School was an intact extended community. This was a school that provided its students with all the benefits of economic prosperity. This was a school that was characterized by “school spirit” and where most of the kids received a solid, well-rounded education. In all likelihood, most of the students attending Columbine felt a positive connection to their school. Yet, this was not the case for Eric and Dylan. For these two boys, their sense of extended community at school was disrupted by the intense and persist isolation, ostracism, and rejection they felt from their peers. Routinely called names and taunted by other students who perceived them as uncool and weird, Eric and Dylan were the types of kids who often fall between the cracks in school like Columbine. Where everything looks good on the surface, and where most students do well, kids like Eric and Dylan are often ignored as social misfits who don’t fit in but who are assumed to pose no real harm. And yet, as history now indicates, the pain they felt in response to their lack of community at the extended level was unbelievably intense and acutely dangerous.

Bullying as Disruption of Community at the Extended Level

Bullying, particularly in schools, has reached epidemic proportions (Garbarino & Delara, 2003; Garrett, 2003; Wessler & Preble, 2003). It has become such a chronic problem in schools that many administrators and school boards are developing stringent zero-tolerance policies to address the problem. In schools where bullying is prevalent, it is difficult for students to feel a sense of safety and security. School, unfortunately, becomes a terror zone. When bullying is present, it has a major deleterious affect on children’s extended community. Like youth violence, bullying feeds off of itself. In more instances than not, a child who has been bullied will eventually become a bully. In a school culture and climate where bullying exists, providing students with a healthy extended community with all of its benefits becomes virtually impossible.

FORCES THAT DISRUPT CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Cultural communities are disrupted by the forces of racism, homophobia, sexism, classism, anti-Semitism, and so forth. After living in the orphanage for almost a year, Carmen was eventually adopted by a wealthy couple, the Brodys, from New York. In one way, the adoption was a new beginning for her. It was a chance to restore her disrupted sense of primary and extended community. But on another level, one that was invisible to her parents and most of people she interacted with, this was the beginning of a persistent, intensely painful assault upon her sense of cultural community.

Carmen’s new family loved her from the moment they saw her. Their hearts could not have opened any wider had she been born to them. And yet, the reality was that she and her new family inhabited two extremely different worlds. They were a white, wealthy North American family. Carmen was a poor South American Indian from a developing country. She had lived all of her life until that point in a small rural mountain village. When she first met her new parents, she did not speak any English.

The Brodys desperately wanted Carmen to forget her past because they assumed it would be too painful for her to remember. Because they believed that focusing on her past would be traumatic, they referred to it sparingly and only in perfunctory ways. Moreover, the Brodys wanted so desperately to make Carmen a genuine member of their family that they did what many white parents do when they adopt children of color: they treated her as if she were white. Instead of acknowledging the differences between them, they sought to minimize these. The family colluded to perpetrate the myth that Carmen was just like them. They taught her English, they taught her Judaism as her new religion, and they never spoke of their racial or class differences. She simply became “one of them.”

The desire to incorporate Carmen into their family was admirable, but it was not without problems. It forced Carmen to deny who she was. It forced her to pretend to be someone she was not, which she perceived as a negative message about her identity. As she once stated to us, “It made me feel like it was bad to be me—like I had to be just like them to be okay.” It also made it difficult for Carmen to approach her family to discuss the ways in which she was subjected to racial taunts in school that left her feeling devalued. Because the unstated rule in her family was to not talk about their differences, Carmen never felt the comfort to tell her parents how she was often ridiculed by other kids because of her race and her accent.

It’s not only kids who have membership in socially devalued groups who experience disruption of community at the cultural level. Sometimes kids who have membership in socially privileged groups also experience a disruption at the cultural level. This occurs when a cultural community manufactures and directs hate toward other groups. For example, when white kids feel racial hatred toward people of color, it prevents them from feeling a genuine positive sense of community in terms of their own racial identity. Whenever identification with a community is based on hatred and intolerance, it creates a false sense of community. A genuine sense of community cannot take root when it built upon the toxic soil that feeds a need to destroy others. Consider an extreme example, the case of Nazi Germany. Germans’ nationalistic zeal during the 1930s suggested that they had a strong, cohesive sense of cultural community. And yet this community was rooted in a deep hatred toward Jews. Ultimately one cannot hate others without hating one’s own self. As Alice Walker (1989) stated, “You cannot curse a part without damning the whole” (p. 197). Hence, cultural communities that have hate as their central focal point do not truly provide the type of life-sustaining energy that is the essence of community.

In the case of the Columbine High School shooters, Harris and Klebold, their disdain for their classmates was also peppered with racial hatred. Isaiah Schoels was an African American classmate who was apparently targeted because he was black. Before murdering him, Harris and Klebold reportedly taunted him with cruel racial epithets. The fact that they had a relationship with their whiteness based on white supremacy suggested that they did not truly feel a meaningful and secure tie to their whiteness. Hence, in addition to the disruption of community that the two boys experienced at the primary and extended levels, we wonder if they also felt this at the cultural level in terms of race. Those who formulate a sense of community that is based upon hating others are joining together reactively. Those who attempt to achieve a sense of community by directing hate at someone else are disconnected from the very qualities that are essential to the formation and maintenance of genuine community. Their purported unity is a reaction to a deep sense of insecurity about the strength and quality of that unity. The type of community that arises from hatred represents a fundamental denial of all the critical components of community, such as compassion, caring, collaboration, cooperation, and particularly conscience.

CONCLUSION

Devaluation can be a force that assaults community. Moreover, when adolescents suffer from a disruption of community, this can become a source of devaluation. And yet, our picture is still undeveloped. In the next chapter we present and discuss the third aggravating factor associated with adolescent violence, the dehumanization of loss.

,

The New Strong-Willed Child

James C. Dobson

Dobson, J. C. (2014).  The New Strong-Willed Child. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc..  https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781414356044

Read: Dobson: Chapters 7–9

Chapter SEVEN GEARING DISCIPLINE TO THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN

Y VONNE, A MOTHER FROM SAN ANTONIO, wrote, “I was at the library with my twenty-month-old, Christy. I asked the librarian to help me locate The Strong-Willed Child, which was new at the time. As the librarian was filling out a form to request the book from a neighboring library, Christy threw herself on the floor in a tantrum because I wouldn’t let her run between the shelves. The lady looked at me and asked, ‘Shall we put RUSH on it?’ ”

While the broad principles I have provided to this point are widely applicable to children, each boy and girl is different, requiring his or her parents to interpret and apply them individually to the complex personality patterns evident in that particular youngster. Added to that challenge is the fact that the target is always moving. Developmental stages are in constant flux, so that Mom and Dad must be prepared to zig and zag year by year. An approach that is entirely appropriate and effective at age five may be obsolete by six or seven, creating a need for something entirely different. Then adolescence comes crashing onto the scene, and everything is thrown up for grabs. The best I can do to assist you in responding to this ever-changing pattern is to offer some guidelines for each age category and suggest that you use them to formulate your own techniques and understanding.

Let’s begin at birth and weave our way through the childhood years. Please understand that this discussion is by no means exhaustive and merely suggests the general nature of disciplinary methods at specific periods.

BIRTH TO SEVEN MONTHS

No direct discipline is necessary for a child under seven months of age, regardless of the behavior or circumstance. Many parents do not agree and find themselves swatting a child of six months for wiggling while being diapered or for crying at midnight. This is a serious mistake. A baby is incapable of comprehending his offense or associating it with the resulting punishment. At this early age, infants need to be held, loved, touched, and soothed with the human voice. They should be fed when hungry and kept clean and dry and warm. It is probable that the foundation for emotional and physical health is laid during this first six-month period, which should be characterized by security, affection, and warmth.

On the other hand, it is possible to create a fussy, demanding baby by rushing to pick him up every time she utters a whimper or sigh. Infants are fully capable of learning to manipulate their parents through a process called reinforcement, whereby any behavior that produces a pleasant result will tend to recur. Thus, a healthy baby can keep her mother or father hopping around her nursery twelve hours a day (or night) by simply forcing air past her sandpaper larynx. To avoid this consequence, you need to strike a balance between giving your baby the attention she needs and establishing her as a tiny dictator. Don’t be afraid to let her cry for a reasonable period of time (which is thought to be healthy for the lungs). It is necessary, though, to listen to the tone of her voice to determine if she’s crying because of random discontent or genuine distress. Most parents learn to recognize this distinction very quickly.

In keeping with our theme, I need to say the obvious: Yes, Virginia, there are easy babies and difficult babies! Some seem determined to dismantle the homes into which they were born; they sleep cozily during the day and then howl in protest all night; they are often colicky and spit up the vilest stuff on their clothes (usually on the way to church); they control their internal plumbing until you hand them to friends, and then they let it blast. Instead of cuddling into the fold of the arms when being held, they stiffen rigidly in search of freedom. And parents who wonder shortly after birth, “Will this baby survive?” may find themselves leaning sock eyed over a vibrating crib at 3 A.M., asking, “Will we survive?”

Both generations usually recover before long, and this disruptive beginning becomes nothing but a dim memory for the parents. And from that demanding tyrant will grow a thinking, loving human being with an eternal soul and a special place in the heart of the Creator. To the exhausted and harassed parents, let me say, “Hang tough! You’re doing the world’s most important assignment.”

EIGHT TO FOURTEEN MONTHS

Many children will begin to test the authority of their parents during the second seven-month period. The confrontations will be minor and infrequent before the first birthday, yet the beginnings of future struggles can be seen. Our daughter, Danae, for example, challenged Shirley for the first time when she was just nine months old. My wife was waxing the kitchen floor when Danae crawled to the edge of the linoleum. Shirley said, “No, Danae,” gesturing to the child not to enter the kitchen. Since our daughter began talking very early, she clearly understood the meaning of the word no. Nevertheless, she crawled straight onto the sticky wax. Shirley picked her up and sat her down in the doorway, while saying no more firmly. Not to be discouraged, Danae scrambled back onto the newly mopped floor. My wife took her back, saying no even more firmly as she put her down. Seven times this process was repeated, until Danae finally yielded and crawled away in tears. As best as we can recall, that was the first direct collision of wills between my daughter and wife. Many more encounters were to follow.

How do parents discipline a one-year-old? Very carefully and gently! Children at this age are easy to distract and divert. Rather than jerking a china cup from their hands, show them a brightly colored alternative—and then be prepared to catch the cup when it falls. When unavoidable confrontations occur, as with Danae crawling onto the waxy floor, win them by firm persistence—not by punishment. Again, don’t be afraid of the child’s tears, which can become a potent weapon to avoid naptime or bedtime or a diaper change. Have the courage to lead the child without being harsh or mean or gruff.

Before leaving this dynamic time of life, I must share with you the findings of a ten-year study of children between the ages of eight and eighteen months. While this investigation, known as Harvard University’s Preschool Project, was completed more than twenty-five years ago, its findings are still relevant for today. The researchers, led by Dr. Burton White, studied the young children intently during the ten-year period, hoping to discover how experiences in the early years of life contribute to the development of a healthy, intelligent human being. The conclusions from this exhaustive effort are summarized below, as reported originally in the American Psychological Association Monitor:1

• It is increasingly clear that the origins of human competence are to be found in a critical period of development between eight and eighteen months of age. The child’s experiences during these brief months do more to influence future intellectual competence than any time before or after.

• The single most important environmental factor in the life of the child is the mother. According to Dr. White, “she is on the hook” and carries more influence on her child’s experiences than any other person or circumstance.

• The amount of live language directed to a child (not to be confused with television, radio, or overheard conversations) is vital to her development of fundamental linguistic, intellectual, and social skills. The researchers concluded, “Providing a rich social life for a twelve- to fifteen-month-old child is the best thing you can do to guarantee a good mind.”

• Those children who are given free access to living areas of their homes progress much faster than those whose movements are restricted.

• The nuclear family is the most important educational delivery system. If we are going to produce capable, healthy children, it will be by strengthening family units and by improving the interactions that occur within them.

• The best parents in the study were those who excelled at three key functions:

1. They were superb designers and organizers of their children’s environments.

2. They permitted their children to interrupt them for brief thirty-second episodes, during which personal consultation, comfort, information, and enthusiasm were exchanged.

3. They were “firm disciplinarians while simultaneously showing great affection for their children.” (I couldn’t have said it better myself.)

These findings speak eloquently about the issues that matter most in early childhood. I hear within them an affirmation and validation of the concepts to which I have devoted my professional life.

F IFTEEN TO TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS

It has been said that all human beings can be classified into two broad categories: those who would vote yes to the various propositions of life and those who would be inclined to vote no. I can tell you with confidence that each toddler around the world would definitely cast a negative vote! If there is one word that characterizes the period between fifteen and twenty-four months of age, it is no! No, they don’t want to eat their cereal. No, they don’t want to play with their building blocks. No, they don’t want to take a bath. And you can be sure that, no, they don’t want to go to bed, ever. It is easy to see why this period of life has been called “the first adolescence,” because of the negativism, conflict, and defiance of the age.

Dr. T. Berry Brazelton authored a helpful book called Toddlers and Parents that included an insightful description of the “terrible twos.”2 The following quote is his classic description of a typical eighteen-month-old boy named Greg. Although I have never met this little fellow, I know him well . . . as you will when your child becomes a toddler.

When Greg began to be negative in the second year, his parents felt as if they had been hit by a sledge hammer. His good nature seemed submerged under a load of negatives. When his parents asked anything of him, his mouth took on a grim set, his eyes narrowed, and, facing them squarely with his penetrating look, he replied simply, “no!” When offered ice cream, which he loved, he preceded his acceptance with a “no.” While he rushed out to get his snowsuit to go outside, he said “no” to going out.

His parents’ habit of watching Greg for cues now began to turn sour. He seemed to be fighting with them all of the time. When he was asked to perform a familiar chore, his response was, “I can’t.” When his mother tried to stop him from emptying his clothes drawer, his response was, “I have to.” He pushed hard on every familiar imposed limit, and never seemed satisfied until his parent collapsed in defeat. He would turn on the television set when his mother left the room. When she returned, she turned it off, scolded Greg mildly, and left again. He turned it on. She came rushing back to reason with him, to ask him why he’d disobeyed her. He replied, “I have to.” The intensity of her insistence that he leave it alone increased. He looked steadily back at her. She returned to the kitchen. He turned it on. She was waiting behind the door, swirled in to slap his hands firmly. He sighed deeply and said, “I have to.” She sat down beside him, begging him to listen to her to avoid real punishment. Again he presented a dour mask with knitted brows to her, listening but not listening. She rose wearily, he walked over to the machine to turn it on. As she came right back, tears in her eyes, to spank him, she said, “Greg, why do you want me to spank you? I hate it!” To which he replied, “I have to.” As she crumpled in the chair, weeping softly with him across her lap, Greg reached up to touch her wet face.

After this clash, Mrs. Lang was exhausted. Greg sensed this and began to try to be helpful. He ran to the kitchen to fetch her mop and her dustpan, which he dragged in to her as she sat in her chair. This reversal made her smile and she gathered him up in a hug.

Greg caught her change in mood and danced off gaily to a corner, where he slid behind a chair, saying “hi and see.” As he pushed the chair out, he tipped over a lamp which went crashing to the floor. His mother’s reaction was, “No, Greg!” He curled up on the floor, his hands over his ears, eyes tightly closed, as if he were trying to shut out all the havoc he had wrought.

As soon as he was put into his high chair, he began to whine. She was so surprised that she stopped preparation of his food, and took him to change him. This did not settle the issue, and when she brought him to his chair again, he began to squirm and twist. She let him down to play until his lunch was ready. He lay on the floor, alternately whining and screeching. So unusual was this that she . . . felt his forehead for fever. . . . Finally, she returned to fixing his lunch. Without an audience, Greg subsided.

When she placed him in his chair again, his shrill whines began anew. She placed his plate in front of him with cubes of food to spear with his fork. He tossed the implement overboard, and began to push his plate away, refusing the food. Mrs. Lang was nonplussed, decided he didn’t feel well, and offered him his favorite ice cream. Again, he sat helpless, refusing to feed himself. When she offered him some, he submissively allowed himself to be fed a few spoonfuls. Then he knocked the spoon out of her hand and pushed the ice cream away. Mrs. Lang was sure that he was ill.

Mrs. Lang extracted Greg from his embattled position, and placed him on the floor to play while she ate lunch. This, of course, wasn’t what he wanted either. He continued to tease her, asking for food off her plate, which he devoured greedily. His eagerness disproved her theory of illness. When she ignored him and continued to eat, his efforts redoubled. He climbed under the sink to find the bleach bottle which he brought to her on command. He fell forward onto the floor and cried loudly as if he’d hurt himself. He began to grunt as if he were having a bowel movement and to pull on his pants. This was almost a sure way of drawing his mother away from her own activity, for she’d started trying to “catch” him and put him on the toilet. This was one of his signals for attention, and she rushed him to the toilet. He smiled smugly at her, but refused to perform. Mrs. Lang felt as if she were suddenly embattled on all fronts—none of which she could win.

When she turned to her own chores, Greg produced the bowel movement he’d been predicting.3

This, my friends, was not a description of a typical toddler. Greg was a classic strong-willed child. He was having fun at the expense of his mama, and he almost took the measure of her. I’ll talk in a moment about how such a child should be handled.

The picture painted by Dr. Brazelton sounds pretty bleak, and admittedly, there are times when a two-year-old can dismantle the peace and tranquility of a home. (Our son, Ryan, loved to blow bubbles in the dog’s water dish—a game that horrified us.) However, with all of its struggles, there is no more delightful time in life than this period of dynamic blossoming and unfolding. New words are being learned daily, and the cute verbal expressions of that age will be remembered for a half century. It is a time of excitement over fairy tales and make-believe and furry puppy dogs. And most important, it is a precious time of loving and warmth that will scurry by all too quickly. There are millions of older parents with grown children today who would give all they possess to relive those bubbly days with their toddlers.

Let me make a few recommendations about discipline that will, I hope, be helpful when a toddler is on the warpath. I must hasten to say, however, that the negativism of this turbulent period is both normal and healthy, and nothing will make an eighteen-month-old act like a five-year-old. Time is the only real “cure.”

Now, let’s talk about Greg. His kind of misbehavior is what Mrs. Susanna Wesley was referring to when she wrote, “In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer the will, and bring them into an obedient temper. To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must with children proceed by slow degrees as they are able to bear it; but the subjecting of the will is a thing which must be done at once, and the sooner the better!” I’m not sure Mrs. Lang accomplished that purpose.

When times of confrontation occur with a strong-willed toddler such as Greg, mild slaps on the bottom or the hand can begin between fifteen and eighteen months of age. They should be relatively infrequent and must be reserved for the kind of defiance he displayed over the television set. He understood what was expected of him but he refused to comply. This behavior is what I have been referring to as willful defiance. Greg was clearly taunting his mother and testing the limits of her endurance. Mrs. Lang mishandled the situation. I’m not being critical of her. I fully understand her frustration and am sure that most mothers would have responded similarly. Nevertheless, she needed to win that battle decisively in order to avoid endless recurrences down the road, but she failed to get that done.

Look again at the mistakes this mother made. When Greg turned the television set on after she had pointedly turned it off, Mrs. Lang “scolded Greg mildly.” He did it again and she “came rushing back to reason with him.” Then she asked him why he disobeyed her. He said “I have to” and turned the television on again. Finally, Mom “swirled in to slap his hands firmly.” Slapping Greg’s hands was the right thing to do, but it came far too late. She should have done that after he had been warned once and then disobeyed again. Mrs. Lang’s other measures were not only ineffective, but they made things worse. It is a total waste of time to “reason” with a toddler in a moment of defiance, and certainly, one does not whine and ask him “why?” You will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. If Greg had had a few more years on him and told the truth, he would have said, “Because I’m trying to drive you nuts, that’s why.” Mrs. Lang wound up begging her strong-willed boy to listen and obey, and then cried when he forced her to punish him. Those were all the wrong things to have done.

I have concentrated on this story because it is applicable to millions of parents who have been led to believe that mild punishment is somehow harmful to children, and that even if it is applied, it should be a last resort after scolding, whining, begging, crying, explaining repeatedly, and trying to reason. These responses to blatant misbehavior undermine authority and put the parent on the same level with the child. What heady stuff it is for a two-year-old to take on a powerful adult and reduce her to tears.

Mrs. Lang should have come back into the room after the television set went on the second time and sat down with a word of advice for her little boy. She should have put her hands on either side of his head, looked him straight in the eyes, and said firmly, “Listen to me, Greg. Mommy does not want you to touch the television set again. Do you hear me? DON’T TOUCH IT AGAIN. Do you understand?” What she would have been doing in that moment was drawing the boundary lines vividly in Greg’s mind. Then if he went back to the set for round three, she should have been standing nearby. The hand-slapping response should have occurred right then. It would not have been necessary to explain or reason. It would have been enough that his mother had given him an order. For most children, tears would have occurred and quenched the rebellious mood Greg was in. In most cases, that would have ended the matter. If he was especially tough, Greg might have tested his mother again. Without screaming or crying or begging, she would have needed simply to outlast him, no matter how long it took. Remember that Dr. Brazelton said Greg never seemed satisfied until his mother collapsed in defeat. That is why Mom should never have let that happen. This toddler should have come out of this encounter with the shocking belief that Mom means business. I don’t like what happened to me. I’d better do what she says.

This response by the mother must be done without abusing the child physically or emotionally. I am convinced from my many years of working with parents that a frustrated woman like Mrs. Lang is less likely to do something unthinkable if she is empowered to handle the challenge early—before it becomes a donnybrook—rather than wait until she is too frazzled to control herself.

Let me caution parents not to punish toddlers for behavior that is natural and necessary to learning and development. Exploration of their environment, for example, is of great importance to intellectual stimulation. You and I will look at a crystal trinket and obtain whatever information we seek from that visual inspection. Toddlers, however, will expose it to all their senses. They will pick it up, taste it, smell it, wave it in the air, pound it on the wall, throw it across the room, and listen to the pretty sound it makes when shattering. By that process, they learn a bit about gravity, rough versus smooth surfaces, the brittle nature of glass, and some startling things about their parent’s anger. (This is not what Greg was doing. He was not exploring. He was disobeying.)

Am I suggesting that kids, strong-willed or otherwise, be allowed to destroy a home and all of its contents? No, but neither is it right to expect curious toddlers to keep their fat little fingers to themselves. Parents should remove those items that are fragile or particularly dangerous and then strew their children’s path with fascinating objects of all types. Permit them to explore everything that is not breakable. Do not ever punish them for touching something, regardless of its value, that they did not know was off-limits. With respect to dangerous items, such as electric plugs and stoves, as well as a few untouchable objects such as the TV controls, it is possible and necessary to teach and enforce the command “Don’t touch!” After making it clear what is expected, a slap on the hand will usually discourage repeat episodes.

Entire books have been written about disciplining young children. I wrote a couple of them. I have only touched on the subject here to give a flavor of the proper approach to management of toddlers—even a confirmed revolutionary like Greg.

TWO TO THREE YEARS OF AGE

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of raising children between two and three is their tendency to spill things, destroy things, eat horrible things, fall off things, flush things, kill things, and get into things. They also have a knack for doing embarrassing things, like sneezing on the man seated near them at McDonald’s. During the toddler years, any unexplained silence of more than thirty seconds can throw an adult into a sudden state of panic. What mother has not had the thrill of opening the bedroom door, only to find Hurricane Hannah covered with lipstick from the top of her head to the carpet on which she stands? Beside her is a red handprint she has placed in the center of the carpet. Throughout the room is the aroma of Chanel No. 5, with which she has anointed a younger sibling. Wouldn’t it be interesting to hold a national convention sometime, bringing together all the mothers who have experienced similar traumas?

When my daughter was two years of age, she was fascinated the first time she watched me shave in the morning. She stood captivated as I put the shaving cream on my face and began using the razor. That should have been my first clue that something was up. The following morning, Shirley came into the bathroom to find our dog, Siggie, sitting in his favorite spot on the furry lid of the toilet seat. Danae had covered his head with lather and was systematically shaving the hair from his shiny skull! Shirley screamed, “Danae!” which sent Siggie and his barber scurrying for safety. It was a hilarious sight to see the little wiener dog standing in the bedroom with nicks and bald spots on his head.

When Ryan was the same age, he had an incredible ability to make messes. He could turn something over and spill it faster than any kid I’ve ever seen, especially at mealtime. (Once while eating a peanut-butter sandwich, he thrust his hand through the bottom side. When his fingers emerged at the top they were covered with peanut butter, and Ryan didn’t recognize them. The poor lad clamped down severely on his index finger.) Because of this destructive inclination, Ryan heard the word mess repeatedly from Shirley and me. It became one of the most important words in his vocabulary. One evening while taking a shower I left the door ajar and got some water on the floor. As you might expect, Ryan came thumping around the corner and stepped in it. He looked up at me and said in the gruffest voice he could manage, “Whuss all this mess in hyere?”

You must keep a sense of humor during the twos and threes in order to preserve your own sanity. But you must also proceed with the task of instilling obedience and respect for authority. Thus, most of the comments written in the preceding section also apply to the child between twenty-two and thirty-six months of age. Although the older toddler is much different physically and emotionally than he was at eighteen months, the tendency to test and challenge parental authority is still very much in evidence. In fact, when young toddlers consistently win the early confrontations and conflicts, they become even more difficult to handle in the second and third years. Then a lifelong disrespect for authority often begins to settle into their young minds. Therefore, I cannot overemphasize the importance of instilling two distinct messages within your child before she is forty-eight months of age:

• “I love you more than you can possibly understand. You are precious to me and I thank God every day He let me raise you!”

• “Because I love you, I must teach you to obey me. That is the only way I can take care of you and protect you from things that might hurt you. Let’s read what the Bible tells us: ‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right’ ” (Ephesians 6:1).

The broad principle, which appears throughout this book, bears repeating. Healthy parenting can be boiled down to those two essential ingredients: love and control. They must operate in a system of checks and balances. Any concentration on love to the exclusion of control usually breeds disrespect and contempt. Conversely, an authoritarian and oppressive home atmosphere is deeply resented by the child who feels unloved or even hated. The objective for the toddler years is to strike a balance between mercy and justice, affection and authority, love and control.

Specifically, how does one discipline a naughty two- or three-year-old child? One possible approach is to require her to sit in a chair and think about what she has done. This is the concept often referred to as a time-out. Most children of this age are bursting with energy and absolutely hate to spend ten dull minutes with their wiggly posteriors glued to a chair. To some individuals, this form of punishment can be even more effective than a spanking and is remembered longer.

Parents to whom I have recommended using time-outs have often asked, “But what if they won’t stay in the chair?” The same question is asked with reference to the child’s tendency to pop out of bed after being tucked in at night. These are examples of the direct confrontation I have been describing. Parents who cannot require a toddler to stay on a chair for a few minutes or in bed at the end of the day are not yet in command of the child. There is no better time than now to change the relationship.

I would suggest that the youngster be placed in bed and given a little speech, such as, “Brandon, this time Mommy means business. Are you listening to me? Do not get out of this bed. Do you understand me?” Then when his feet touch the floor, give him one swat on the legs or backside with a small paddle or belt. (I’ll explain later why a neutral object is better, in my opinion, than using the hand.) Put the paddle on the dresser where the child can see it, and promise him one more stroke if he gets up again. Walk confidently out of the room without further comment. If he rebounds again, fulfill your promise and offer the same warning if he doesn’t stay in bed. Repeat the episode until the child acknowledges that you are boss. Then hug him, tell him how you love him, and remind him how important it is for him to get rest so that he won’t be sick, etc.

Your purpose in this painful exercise (painful for both parties) is not only to keep the child in bed but to confirm your leadership in his mind. It is my opinion that too many parents lack the courage to win these confrontations and are kept off balance and on the defensive ever after. Remember: You are the benevolent boss. Act like it.

FOUR TO EIGHT YEARS

By the time a child reaches four years of age, the focus of discipline should not only be on his or her behavior, but also on the attitudes motivating it. The task of shaping this expression of the personality can be relatively simple or incredibly difficult, depending on the basic temperament of a particular child. Some youngsters are naturally warm and loving and trusting, while others sincerely believe the world is out to get them. Some enjoy giving and sharing, while their siblings may be selfish and demanding. Some smile throughout the day while others complain about everything from toothpaste to broccoli.

Furthermore, these attitudinal patterns are not consistent from one time to the next. They tend to alternate cyclically between rebellion and obedience. In other words, a time of intense conflict and defiance (if properly handled) gives way to a period of love and cooperation. Then when Mom and Dad relax and congratulate themselves for doing a super job of parenting, their little chameleon changes colors again.

Some might ask, “So what? Why should we be concerned about the attitudes of a boy or girl?” Indeed, there are many child-rearing specialists who suggest ignoring negative attitudes, including those that are unmistakably defiant in tone. Here is an example of what some of them say:

This [recommendation that parents ignore disobedience] works best with annoying, but not harmful, behavior like bad language or tantrums. Effective ignoring involves not talking or looking at the child or using any body language that indicates attention.4

Another advocate of this naive approach was Dr. Luther Woodward, whose recommendations are paraphrased in a book that is now thankfully out of print, Your Child from Two to Five.5 This was Dr. Woodward’s ill-considered advice:

What do you do when your preschooler calls you a “big stinker” or threatens to flush you down the toilet? Do you scold, punish . . . or sensibly take it in your stride?6

Dr. Woodward recommended a positive policy of understanding as the best and fastest way to help a child outgrow this verbal violence. He wrote, “When parents fully realize that all little tots feel angry and destructive at times, they are better able to minimize these outbursts. Once the preschooler gets rid of his hostility, the desire to destroy is gone and instinctive feelings of love and affection have a chance to sprout and grow. Once the child is six or seven, parents can rightly let the child know that he is expected to be outgrowing sassing his parents.”7

Dr. Woodward then warned his readers that the permissive advice he was offering would not be popular with onlookers. He wrote: “But this policy takes a broad perspective and a lot of composure, especially when friends and relatives voice disapproval and warn you that you are bringing up a brat.”8

In this case, your friends and relatives would probably be right. This suggestion (published during the permissive 1950s and typical of other writings from that era) is based on the erroneous notion that children will develop sweet and loving attitudes if adults will permit and encourage their emotional outbursts and their sassiness during childhood. It didn’t work for Dr. Woodward’s generation, and it won’t be successful with your children. The child who has been calling his mother a big stinker (or worse) for six or seven years is unlikely to yield to parental leadership during the storms of adolescence. By then, the opportunity to shape the will of a strong-willed child is long gone, after which rebellious behavior will be a virtual certainty.

I expressed my divergent views on this subject in The New Dare to Discipline as follows:

I believe that if it is desirable for children to be kind, appreciative, and pleasant, those qualities should be taught—not hoped for. If we want to see honesty, truthfulness, and unselfishness in our offspring, then these characteristics should be the conscious objectives of our early instructional process. If it is important to produce respectful, responsible young citizens, then we should set out to mold them accordingly. The point is obvious: Heredity does not equip a child with proper attitudes; children will learn what they are taught. We cannot expect the coveted behavior to appear magically if we have not done our early homework.9

I fear that many parents today are failing to teach attitudes in their children that will lead to successful and responsible lives.

But how does one shape the attitudes of children? Most parents find it easier to deal with outright disobedience than with unpleasant characteristics of temperament or personality. Let me restate two age-old suggestions, and then I’ll offer a system that can be used with the especially disagreeable child.

There is no substitute for parental modeling of the attitudes we wish to teach. Someone wrote, “The footsteps a child follows are most likely to be the ones his parents thought they covered up.” It is true. Our children are watching us carefully, and they instinctively imitate our behavior. Therefore, we can hardly expect them to be kind and giving if we are consistently grouchy and selfish. We will be unable to teach appreciativeness if we never say please or thank you at home or abroad. We will not produce honest children if we teach them to lie over the phone to someone trying to collect payment from us by saying, “Dad’s not home.” In these matters, our boys and girls quickly discern the gap between what we say and what we do. And of the two choices, they usually identify with our behavior and ignore our empty proclamations.

Most of the favorable attitudes that should be taught are actually extrapolations of the Judeo-Christian ethic, including honesty, respect, kindness, love, human dignity, obedience, responsibility, reverence, and so forth. And how are these time-honored principles conveyed to the next generation? The answer was provided by Moses in the words he wrote more than three thousand years ago in the book of Deuteronomy: “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

In other words, we can’t instill these attitudes during a brief, two-minute bedtime prayer or during formal training sessions. We must live them from morning to night. They should be reinforced during our casual conversation, being punctuated with illustrations, demonstrations, compliments, and chastisement. Finally, let me suggest an approach for use with the strong-willed or negative child (age six or older) for whom other forms of instruction have been ineffective. I am referring specifically to the sour, complaining child who is making himself and the rest of his family miserable. The problem in disciplining such a child is the need to define the changes that are desired and then reinforce the improvements when they occur. Attitudes are abstractions that a six- or eight-year-old may not fully understand, and we need a system that will clarify the target in his mind.

Toward this end, I have developed an attitude chart (see illustration) that translates these subtle mannerisms into concrete, mathematical terms. Please note: The system that follows is not appropriate for the child who merely has a bad day or displays temporary unpleasantness associated with illness, fatigue, or environmental circumstances. Rather, it is a remedial tool to help change persistently negative and disrespectful attitudes by making the child conscious of her problem.

The attitude chart should be prepared and then reproduced, since a separate sheet will be needed each day. Place an X in the appropriate square for each category, and then add the total points “earned” by bedtime. Although this nightly evaluation process has the appearance of being objective to the child, it is obvious that the parents can influence the outcome by considering it in advance (it’s called cheating). Mom and Dad may want Michael or Rebecca to receive eighteen points on the first night, barely missing the punishment but realizing he or she must stretch the following day. I must emphasize, however, that the system will fail miserably if a naughty child does not receive the punishment she deserves or if she hustles to improve but does not receive the family fun she was promised. This approach is nothing more than a method of applying reward and punishment to attitudes in a way that children can understand and remember.

For the child who does not fully comprehend the concept of numbers, it might be helpful to plot the daily totals on a cumulative graph, such as the one provided below.

I don’t expect everyone to appreciate this system or to apply it at home. In fact, parents of compliant, happy children will be puzzled as to why it would ever be needed. However, mothers and fathers of sullen, ill-tempered children will comprehend more quickly. Take it or leave it, as the situation warrants.

N INE TO TWELVE YEARS

Ideally, the foundation has been laid during the first nine years that will then permit a general loosening of the lines of authority. Every year that passes should bring fewer rules, less direct discipline, and more independence for the child. This does not mean that a ten-year-old is suddenly emancipated; it does mean that she is permitted to make more decisions about her daily living than when she was six. It also means that she should be carrying more responsibility each year of her life.

Physical punishment should be relatively infrequent during this period immediately prior to adolescence. Studies show that corporal punishment loses its effectiveness after the age of ten and should be discontinued. However, as is the case with all human beings, there are exceptions to the rules. Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted. However, compliant youngsters should have experienced their last round of corporal punishment by the end of their first decade (or even four years earlier). Some never need it at all.

The overall objective during this final preadolescent period is to teach the child that his actions have inevitable consequences. One of the most serious casualties in a permissive society is the failure to connect those two factors: behavior and consequences. Too often, a three-year-old child screams insults at her mother, but Mom stands blinking her eyes in confusion or simply ignores the behavior. A first-grader launches an attack on his teacher, but the school makes allowances for his age or is fearful of a lawsuit and takes no action. A ten-year-old is caught stealing candy in a store but is released with a reprimand. A fifteen-year-old sneaks the keys to the family car, but his father bails him out when he is arrested. A seventeen-year-old drives like a maniac, and her parents pay the higher insurance premiums after she wraps the family car around a telephone pole. You see, all through childhood some loving parents seem determined to intervene between behavior and consequences, breaking the connection and preventing the valuable learning that could have occurred.

Thus, it is possible for a young man or woman to enter adult life not really knowing that life can be harsh—that every move directly affects the future and that irresponsible behavior eventually produces sorrow and pain. One of the saddest sights is the adult who did not learn that behaviors have inevitable consequences and makes mistake after mistake that could easily have been avoided. Such a person applies for his first job and arrives late for work three times during the first week; then, when he is fired in a flurry of hot words, he becomes bitter and frustrated. It was the first time in his life that Mom and Dad couldn’t come running to rescue him from unpleasant circumstances. Or an individual gets married and has children but bounces from job to job trying to “find himself” while his family struggles financially. (Unfortunately, many parents still try to bail out their grown children even when they are in their twenties, and sometimes even their thirties.) What is the result? This overprotection produces emotional cripples who often develop lasting characteristics of dependency and a kind of perpetual adolescence.

How does one connect behavior with consequences? Parents must be willing to let children experience a reasonable amount of pain when they behave irresponsibly. When Craig misses the school bus through his own dawdling, let him walk a mile or two and enter school in midmorning (unless safety factors prohibit this). If Caitlin carelessly loses her lunch money, let her skip a meal. Obviously, it is possible to carry this principle too far, being harsh and inflexible with an immature child. But the best approach is to expect boys and girls to carry the responsibility that is appropriate for their age and occasionally to taste the bitter fruit that irresponsibility bears.

Let me offer an illustration that may be read to an eleven- or twelve-year-old child. The following story was published a few days after an eclipse of the sun had occurred:

Tipton, Ind. (UPI)—Ann Turner, 15, is living proof of the danger of trying to watch a solar eclipse with the naked eye. Now she is blind.

On March 7, despite the warnings she had read, Ann “took a quick look through the window” at her home at the solar eclipse in progress.

“For some reason, I just kept staring out of the window,” she told Pat Cline, a reporter for the Tipton Daily Tribune. “I was fascinated by what was taking place in the sky.

“There was no pain or feeling of discomfort as I watched. I stood there perhaps four or five minutes when Mom caught me and made me turn away from the window.”

Ann said she “saw spots before my eyes but I didn’t think much about it.” Shortly afterward, she walked downtown and suddenly realized when she looked at a traffic signal that she could not read signs.

Frightened, Ann turned around and headed home. As she neared the porch, she said, she found she was “walking in darkness.”

She was too scared to tell her family until the next day, although she “had an intuition or suspicion that something terrible was happening.”

“I cried and cried,” she said. “I didn’t want to be blind. God knows I didn’t want to live in darkness the rest of my life.

“I kept hoping the nightmare would end and I could see again but the darkness kept getting worse. I was scared. I had disobeyed my parents and the other warnings. I could not go back and change things. It was too late.”

When Mr. and Mrs. Coy Turner learned what had happened, they took Ann to specialists. But the doctors shook their heads and said they could not help Ann regain her sight. They said she is 90 percent blind and can make out only faint lines of large objects on the periphery of what used to be her normal sight field.

With the help of a tutor, Ann is going ahead with her education. She is learning to adjust to the world of darkness.10

After reading this dramatic story to your boy or girl, it might be wise to say, “This terrible thing happened to Ann because she didn’t believe what she was told by her parents and other adults. She trusted her own judgment instead. And the reason I read this to you is to help you understand that you might soon be in a situation that is similar to Ann’s. As you go into your teen years, you will have many opportunities to do some things that we have told you are harmful. For example, someone may try to convince you to take illegal drugs that seem harmless at the time but end up resulting in all sorts of health problems later on. Someone else, perhaps even a teacher, may tell you that it is okay for you to experiment sexually with someone as long as you do it ‘safely,’ and you may end up with a disease that will ravage your body and cause numerous problems for you and the person you eventually marry. Just like Ann, you may not realize the consequences until it is too late. That is why it will be so important for you to believe the warnings that you’ve been taught rather than to trust your own judgment. Many young people make mistakes during the teenage years that will affect the rest of their life, and I want to help you avoid those problems. But the truth of the matter is, only you can set your course and choose your pathway. You can accept what your eyes tell you, like Ann did, or you can believe what your mother and I have said, and more important, what we read in God’s Word. I have confidence that you will make the right decisions, and it’s going to be fun watching you grow up.”

There is so much that should be said about this late childhood era, but the limitations of time and space force me to move on. In conclusion, the period between ten and eleven years of age often represents the final time of closeness and unpretentious love between parent and child until the child reaches young adulthood. Enjoy it to the maximum, for believe me, there are more tumultuous days coming! (I have chosen to reserve the discussion of adolescent discipline for a separate chapter because of the significance of the topic.)

I’ll end with a final illustration. I was once accompanied on a speaking trip by my wife, Shirley, requiring us to leave Danae and Ryan with their grandparents for a full week. Shirley’s parents are dear people and loved our children very much. However, two bouncing, jumping, giggling little rascals can wear down the nerves of any adult, especially ones trying to enjoy their golden years. When we returned home from the trip I asked my father-in-law how the children behaved and whether or not they caused him any problems. He replied in his North Dakota accent, “Oh no! Dere good kids. But the important thing is, you jus’ got to keep ’em out in da open.”

That was probably the best disciplinary advice ever offered. Many behavioral problems can be prevented by simply avoiding the circumstances that create them. And especially for boys and girls growing up in congested cities, perhaps what we need most is to get ’em “out in da open.” It’s not a bad idea.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: My five-year-old is developing a problem with lying, and I don’t know how to handle it. What can I do to get him to tell the truth?

A: Lying is a problem every parent must deal with. All children distort the truth from time to time, and some become inveterate liars. Responding appropriately is a task that requires an understanding of child development and the characteristics of a particular individual. I’ll offer some general advice that will have to be modified to fit specific cases.

First, understand that a young child may or may not fully comprehend the difference between lies and the truth. There is a very thin line between fantasy and reality in the mind of a preschool boy or girl. So before you react in a heavy-handed manner, be sure you know what he understands and what his intent is.

For those children who are clearly lying to avoid unpleasant consequences or to gain an advantage of some sort, parents need to use that circumstance as a teachable moment. The greatest emphasis should be given to telling the truth in all situations. It is a virtue that should be taught—not just when a lie has occurred, but at other times as well. In your devotions with the children, read Proverbs 6:16-19 together: “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”

These are powerful verses around which to structure devotional periods with children. Explain who Solomon was, why his teachings are so important to us, and how Scripture helps us. It is like a flashlight on a dark night, guiding our footsteps and keeping us on the right path. It will even protect us while we are asleep, if we will bind it on our heart forever. Memorize Proverbs 6:16-19 together so it can be referred to in other contexts. Use it as a springboard to discussions of virtues and behavior that will please God. Each verse can be applied to everyday situations so that a child can begin to feel accountable for what he does and says.

Returning to the specific issue of lying, point out to the child that in a list of seven things the Lord hates most, two of them deal with dishonesty. Telling the truth is something God cares about, and therefore it should matter to us. This will explain why you are going to insist that your son or daughter learn to tell the truth even when it hurts to do so. Your goal is to lay a foundation that will help you underscore a commitment to honesty in the future.

The next time your child tells a blatant lie, you can return to this discussion and to the Scripture on which it was based. At some point, when you feel the maturity level of the youngster makes it appropriate, you should begin to insist that the truth be told and to impose mild punishment if it isn’t. Gradually, over a period of years, you should be able to teach the virtue of truthfulness to your son or daughter.

Of course, you can undermine everything you’re trying to establish if you are dishonest in front of your kids. Believe me, they will note it and behave likewise. If Daddy can twist the truth, he’ll have little authority in preventing his kids from doing the same.

Q: I like your idea of balancing love with discipline, but I’m not sure I can do it. My parents were extremely rigid with us, and I’m determined not to make that mistake with my kids. But I don’t want to be a pushover, either. Can you give me some help in finding the middle ground between extremes?

A: Maybe it would clarify the overall goal of your discipline to state it in the negative. It is not to produce perfect kids. Even if you implement a flawless system of discipline at home, which no one in history has done, your children will still be children. At times they will be silly, lazy, selfish, and, yes, disrespectful. Such is the nature of the human species. We as adults have the same weaknesses. Furthermore, when it comes to kids, that’s the way they are wired. Boys and girls are like clocks; you have to let them run. My point is that the purpose of parental discipline is not to produce obedient little robots who can sit with their hands folded in the parlor thinking patriotic and noble thoughts! Even if we could pull that off, it wouldn’t be wise to try.

The objective, as I see it, is to take the raw material our babies arrive with on this earth and gradually mold it, shaping them into mature, responsible, God-fearing adults. It is a twenty-year process that involves progress, setbacks, successes, and failures. When the child turns thirteen, you’ll swear for a time that he’s missed everything you thought you had taught—manners, kindness, grace, and style. But then maturity begins to take over, and the little green shoots from former plantings start to emerge. It is one of the richest experiences in life to watch that blossoming at the latter end of childhood.

Q: Do you think there is a relationship between permissive parenting and teen violence, especially at home?

A: Without question. Teen violence, at home and in public, has many causes, but permissive parenting is one of them. Many years ago, I came across an article on this subject and put it in my files. Though it is now old, it still answers the question you have posed. It is quoted below, in part:

Two scientists at the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the University of Maryland Medical School have identified what they call a new syndrome of family violence: parent battering.

The term includes both physical assault and serious threats of physical harm by children and young people.

Although the scientists do not know for sure, they suspect that the syndrome is not uncommon.

It seems to occur, they find, in families of all classes in which “one or both parents have abdicated the executive position” and no one, except possibly the battering child, is in charge.

An almost universal element in the families is that they deny the seriousness of the child’s aggressive behavior.

For instance, a father who was almost killed when his son pushed him downstairs insisted that the boy had no problems with his temper.

Dr. Henry T. Harbin and Dr. Dennis Madden found that one of the most remarkable features of the cases they studied was the parents’ tolerant response to the attack.

In one case, a youth of eighteen stabbed his mother, missing her heart by an inch, yet she was quite willing to let her son continue living at home.

Instead of asserting parental authority in the face of threats or attack, parents frequently gave in to their children’s demands.

Even if their lives were in danger, they did not always call the police, and when questioned later they often lied to protect their children—and their self-image as effective parents.

Confronting the aberrant behavior of the child implies an admission of failure, the researchers said.

Another reason for denial was “to maintain an illusion, a myth of family harmony,” to avoid thinking the unthinkable that the family was disintegrating.

“For parents to admit that their offspring have actually tried to kill them arouses massive anxiety and depression,” the researchers believe.

When parents were asked who they would like to be in charge of a hypothetical family, few said that mothers or fathers should make the rules and some said that everyone in the family should be equal.

If battering children who were undergoing treatment at the violence clinic wanted to stop therapy or drop out of school, parents often answered, “Whatever you want to do.”

Dr. Harbin said that, ideally, both parents should take a firm hand, but in any case, “someone needs to be in charge.”11

Q : Isn’t it our goal to produce children with self-discipline and self-reliance? If so, how does your approach to external discipline imposed by parents get translated into internal control?

A: Many authorities suggest that parents take a passive approach to their children for the reason implied by your question: They want their kids to discipline themselves. But since young people lack the maturity to generate self-control, they stumble through childhood without experiencing either internal or external discipline. Thus, they enter adult life having never completed an unpleasant assignment or accepted an order they disliked or yielded to the leadership of their elders. Can we expect such a person to exercise self-discipline in young adulthood? I think not. That individual doesn’t even know the meaning of the word.

My belief is that parents should introduce their children to discipline and self-control by any reasonable means available, including the use of external influences, when they are young. By being required to behave responsibly, children gain valuable experience in controlling their impulses and resources. Year by year, responsibility is gradually transferred from the shoulders of the parents directly to the children. Eventually, they will act on what they learned in their earlier years—on their own initiative.

To illustrate, children should be required to keep their room relatively neat when they are young. Then somewhere during the midteens, their own self-discipline should take over and provide the motivation to continue the task. If it does not, the parents should close the door and let them live in a dump, if that is their choice.

In short, self-discipline does not come automatically to those who have never experienced it. Self-control must be learned, and it must be taught.

Chapter EIGHT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT & THE STRONG-WILLED CHILD

BEHIND IN HIS READING

Junior bit the meter man,

Junior kicked the cook.

Junior’s antisocial now

(According to the book).

Junior smashed the clock and lamp,

Junior hacked the tree.

(Destructive trends are treated

In chapters 2 and 3.)

Junior threw his milk at Mom,

Junior screamed for more.

(Notes of self-assertiveness

Are found in chapter 4.)

Junior tossed his shoes and socks

Out into the rain.

(Negation, that, and normal—

Disregard the stain).

Junior got in Grandpop’s room,

Tore up his fishing line.

That’s to gain attention

(See page 89).

Grandpop seized a slipper and

Yanked Junior ’cross his knee.

(Grandpop hasn’t read a book

Since 1923).1

Dear ol’ Grandpop. He may have been a little old-fashioned in his ideas, but he certainly knew how to handle Junior. So did most members of his generation. Moms and dads long before 1923 would never have put up with rebellious behavior from strong-willed children. Nor would they have been permitted to defy their elders or harass other members of the family. Drug usage and early sexual behavior would have brought the roof down on the kids who tried them. Unfortunately, in their zeal to make children behave properly, Victorian parents had a tendency to be too tough, too intimidating, and too punitive. Many of them were downright oppressive to vulnerable little kids who were doing nothing more than being childish.

I wish I could say that we in the twenty-first century are more enlightened and less likely to harm our children than our forebears, but it is not true. Growing up is a dangerous venture for millions of little people around the world who are suffering untold miseries at the hands of those who should be protecting and nurturing them.

No subject distresses me more than the tragedy of child abuse, which is depressingly common today. It is probable that a youngster living within a mile or two of your house is experiencing physical or emotional abuse in one form or another. It occurs in both poor and affluent homes, although the incidence is higher in inner-city neighborhoods. There and elsewhere, parents who are addicted to alcohol and illegal drugs are most likely to hurt or neglect kids.

During my years as a professor of pediatrics at a medical school, there was a steady stream of boys and girls who had been burned, bruised, and broken who were brought into our emergency hospital. Their little minds were warped by the awful circumstances of their lives. The incidence of abuse is even greater today. One of the common traumas seen in children’s hospitals everywhere occurs when angry parents jerk boys and girls up by their arms, dislocating shoulders or elbows.

Diseased children sometimes suffer terribly, of course, but most of them experience some measure of emotional support to help them cope with their circumstances. For many of those boys and girls who have been beaten by a relative, however, there is no one to care, no one who understands. There is no one to whom he or she can go to express their longings and fears. They cannot escape. They cannot explain why they are hated. And many of them are too young to even call for help.

One such tragedy involved a six-year-old girl named Elisa Izquierdo, who was found dead in a lower Manhattan housing project in 1995.2 Rescue workers discovered deep-red blotches, either welts or cigarette burns, over her entire body. There were enormous bruises near her kidney, on her face, and around her temples. Her genitals had been damaged severely, and the bone in her right pinkie finger jutted through the skin. Michael Brown, one of the fire fighters who tried to revive Elisa, said, “In my twenty-two years of service . . . this is the worst case of child abuse I have ever seen.”3 Elisa’s mother, a crack-cocaine addict, admitted to making the little girl sleep in her own urine and feces and to hitting Elisa so hard that she flew headfirst into a concrete wall, permanently crippling her. In addition, she slid snakes down her daughter’s throat to “exorcise” demons, held her upside down and used her curly hair as a mop, and used a hairbrush to damage the helpless little girl’s genitals.4

In another case, a father killed his three-year-old son in order to win back his girlfriend. The man taped a garbage bag over the boy’s head and sealed his mouth with duct tape. The father said the boy was crying when he left him, but he went ahead and drove away anyway.5

Obviously, these are extreme cases of physical abuse that horrify us all. But emotional neglect and rejection can also leave deep scars and wounds on the mind and body of children, sometimes resulting in physical symptoms decades later. In 1997, researchers at Harvard University, Drs. Linda Russek and Gary Schwartz, released a study revealing that children who perceive a lack of parental warmth and closeness early in life faced health problems later in life.6 The forty-year study found that 91 percent of college men who reported a lack of closeness with their mothers had a greater risk of developing coronary heart disease, duodenal ulcers, high blood pressure, or alcoholism.7 By contrast, the study found that only 45 percent of those surveyed who felt that they did have a close relationship with their mothers had suffered from one of these ailments.8 Russek and Schwartz found a similar association between lack of closeness with a father and later health problems. They concluded:

The effects of feelings of warmth and closeness appear to be addictive. . . . Since parents are usually the meaningful source of social support in early life, the perception of parental love and caring may have important biological and psychological health and illness implications throughout life.9

O ther studies have also demonstrated a link between family stress and a number of physical problems. For example, an investigation reported in Archives of Disease in Childhood linked stress with slow growth in children.10 The researchers found that “a total of 31.1 percent of children who had experienced family conflict were of short stature compared with 20.2 percent of those who had not.”11 They hypothesized that “stress reduces the release of growth hormones and increases the secretion of stress hormones (glucocorticoids), which can then damage the [brain] hippocampus” and interfere with the brain’s learning and memory functions.12

These and other studies offer strong evidence that the foundation laid during childhood can affect a person throughout his or her adult life.

Given the delicate relationship between parents and their children and the rising incidence of physical and emotional assaults on boys and girls, the last thing I want to do is to provide a rationalization or justification for anything that could hurt them. Let me say it once more: I don’t believe in harsh, oppressive, demeaning discipline, even when it is well-intentioned. Such destructive parenting is antithetical to everything I believe and stand for. At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me say that among the honors and awards I have received through the years, the one I value most is a bronze statue of a small boy and girl. The arm of one of the children is outstretched as though reaching for the loving hand of an adult. The inscription on the base of the statue, given by an organization dedicated to the prevention of child abuse, designated me as “The Children’s Friend” in that year.

Considering this lifelong commitment to the welfare of children, why would I recommend corporal punishment as a management tool? It is a very good question, especially in view of the many articles and editorials appearing in the media these days that resoundingly condemn its use. Convincing the public that corporal punishment is universally harmful has become an unrelenting crusade within certain elements of the liberal media. I believe their efforts have been terribly misguided.

I would be quick to acknowledge that corporal punishment can be harmful when used wrongly. It is possible . . . even easy . . . to create an aggressive child who has observed violent episodes at home. If he is routinely beaten by parents, or if he witnesses physical violence between angry adults, the child will not fail to notice how the game is played. Thus, corporal punishment that is not administered according to very carefully thought-out guidelines has the potential to become dangerous. Parenthood does not give the right to slap and intimidate a child because Dad had a bad day or Mom is in a lousy mood. It is this kind of unjust discipline that causes some well-meaning authorities to reject corporal punishment altogether.

Just because a useful technique can be used wrongly, however, is no reason to reject it altogether. Many children desperately need this resolution to their disobedience. In those situations when the child fully understands what he is being asked to do or not to do but refuses to yield to adult leadership, an appropriate spanking is the shortest and most effective route to an attitude adjustment. When he lowers his head, clenches his fists, and makes it clear he is going for broke, justice must speak swiftly and eloquently. This response does not create aggression in children, but it does help them control their impulses and live in harmony with various forms of benevolent authority throughout life.

There is another reason I believe the proper use of corporal punishment is in the best interest of children. Strong-willed boys and girls can be terribly irritating to their parents, as we all know. Most of them have figured out how to press all the right (or wrong) buttons to make their moms and dads absolutely furious. One father said that nothing in his adult experience could make him more angry than the rebellious behavior of his ten-year-old son, day after day. Given that kind of volatile interaction, I am convinced that a determined, hard-nosed kid in the hands of an immature or emotionally unstable parent is a recipe for disaster. The likelihood of physical damage to that youngster is enormous, and it becomes even greater if the parents have been stripped of the ability to control challenging behavior before it gets out of hand.

When permissive advice-givers convince moms and dads that they can, and must, manage their children by talking and reasoning during nose-to-nose confrontations, the parents get more and more frustrated as the misbehavior intensifies. Eventually, too many of them blow up, and when they do, anything can happen. I am convinced that child abuse often emerges from that scenario in one way or another. How much better, and safer, it is for moms and dads to administer a judicious and carefully measured spanking to a child (or even a well-timed swat or two), before she and her parents are both out of control. It is even more advantageous for a savvy strong-willed child to know that spanking is an option, leading him to back off before he goes too far. By depriving parents of this possibility, the well-meaning counselors and psychologists inadvertently set up tough-minded kids for disaster at home.

The recommendations that I offer in this book, therefore, are intended not only to help moms and dads raise their children properly. I also seek to protect children from harm. Firm discipline, when administered with love, helps provide that protection.

Here’s an example of corporal punishment administered correctly and with the desired result. It was relayed to me by a father, William Jarnagin, a certified public accountant, who wrote me the following letter. It speaks volumes about the proper approach to parent-child relationships:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

This is a note of thanks for your work in strengthening the American family. My wife and I have recently read four of your books and we have profited very much from them.

Please permit me to relate a recent experience with our six-year-old son, David. Last Friday night, my wife, Becky, told him to pick up some orange peelings he had left on the carpet, which he knows is a “no-no.” He failed to respond, and as a result received one slap on his behind, whereupon he began an obviously defiant temper tantrum.

Since I had observed the whole episode, I then called for my paddle and applied it appropriately, saw to it that he picked up and properly disposed of the orange peelings, and sent him straight to bed, since it was already past his bedtime. After a few minutes, when his emotions had had a chance to settle down, I went to his room and explained that God had instructed all parents who truly love their children to properly discipline them, etc., and that we truly love him and therefore would not permit such defiant behavior.

The next morning, after I had gone to work, David presented his mother with the following letter, together with a little stack of ten pennies:

From David and Deborah

To Mom and Dad

Ross Dr. 3d house

Sellmer, Tennasse

39718

Dear Mom and Dad

here is 10 Cints for

Pattelling me when I

really neded and that

gos for Deborah to I

love you

Love yur son David

and yur Doter Deborah

Oh, incidentally, Deborah is our one-year-old daughter whose adoption should be final sometime in June.

Keep up your good work and may God bless you.

Sincerely,

William H. Jarnagin

Mr. William Jarnagin understands the appropriate response of a father to a child’s defiance. It is neither harsh nor insulting nor dangerous nor whimsical. Rather, it represents the firm but loving discipline that is required for the best interest of the child. How fortunate is the boy or girl whose father and mother still comprehend that timeless concept.

If you have read my earlier books offering child-rearing advice, including The New Dare to Discipline, you may be aware that I have addressed this subject of corporal punishment extensively for many years.13 Rather than repeating those other recommendations and explanations, I would like to devote the rest of this chapter to a very thorough article written by two noted physicians, Den A. Trumbull, M.D., and S. DuBose Ravenel, M.D. It was actually intended for physicians and was published in Focus on the Family’s Physician magazine.14 This informative review, provided below, summarizes current research and answers eight often-heard arguments against corporal punishment.

TO SPANK OR NOT TO SPANK

A look at an age-old question that baffles many physicians

BY DEN A. TRUMBULL, M.D., AND S. DUBOSE RAVENEL, M.D.

Primary-care physicians advise parents on many child-rearing issues. On the list of the most difficult is the issue of disciplinary spanking. Despite years of traditional acceptance, professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have recently suggested that spanking can be harmful to children. In a surprising move recently, however, the AAP released a special report that suggests spanking may not be harmful to a child’s health. In a supplement to the October 1996 Pediatrics, the cochairpersons, Drs. Stanford Friedman and Kenneth Schonberg of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, summarized the findings of an AAP-sponsored conference last year that was devoted to reviewing the research on spanking. “Given a relatively ‘healthy’ family life in a supportive environment, spanking in and of itself is not detrimental to a child or predictive of later problems,” they report.

The AAP’s findings recognize what many physicians have believed for years and what John Lyons of the Northwestern University School of Medicine found in his research review: Studies demonstrate beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking. These findings, however, do not change the fact that opposition to parents spanking their children has been growing in elite circles of society over the past 15 years. No doubt much of this opposition springs from a sincere concern for the well-being of children. Child abuse is a reality, and stories of such abuse are horrifying. But while loving and effective discipline is not harsh and abusive, neither should it be weak and ineffectual. Indeed, disciplinary spanking can fall within the boundaries of loving discipline and need not be labeled abusive.

Or so most Americans seem to think. According to a recent Voter/ Consumer Research poll commissioned by the Family Research Council, 76 percent of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed said that spanking was an effective form of discipline in their home when they were children. These results are made more impressive by the fact that nearly half of those who answered otherwise grew up in homes in which they were never spanked. Taken together, more than four out of five Americans who as children were spanked by their parents say that it was effective discipline.

Some critics claim that spanking a child is abusive and contributes to adult dysfunction. These allegations arise from studies that fail to distinguish appropriate spanking from other forms of punishment.

Abusive forms of physical punishment such as kicking, punching, and beating are commonly grouped with mild spanking. Furthermore, the studies usually include, and even emphasize, corporal punishment of adolescents rather than focusing on preschool children, where spanking is more appropriate and effective. This blurring of distinctions between spanking and physical abuse, and between children of different ages, gives critics the illusion of having data condemning all disciplinary spanking.

There are several arguments commonly leveled against disciplinary spanking. Ironically, most of these arguments can be used against other forms of discipline. Any form of discipline (time-out, restriction, etc.), when used inappropriately and in anger, can distort a child’s perception of justice and harm his emotional development. In light of this, let us examine some of the unfounded arguments promoted by spanking opponents.

ARGUMENT 1: Many psychological studies show that spanking is an improper form of discipline.

COUNTERPOINT: Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson, and David Larson, M.D., of the National Institute of Healthcare Research in 1993 conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment. They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in clinical and psychosocial journals were opinion-driven editorials, reviews, or commentaries devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Building upon this review, Dr. Robert E. Larzelere published an exhaustive review of the corporal punishment literature in the October 1996 supplement to Pediatrics. He also found insufficient data to condemn the use of spanking by parents.

ARGUMENT 2: Physical punishment establishes the moral righteousness of hitting other persons who do something that is wrong.

COUNTERPOINT: The “spanking teaches hitting” belief has gained in popularity over the past decade but is not supported by objective evidence. A distinction must be made between abusive hitting and non abusive spanking. A child’s ability to discriminate hitting from disciplinary spanking depends largely upon the parent’s attitude toward spanking and the parent’s procedure for spanking. There is no evidence in the medical literature that a mild spank to the buttocks of a disobedient child by a loving parent teaches the child aggressive behavior.

The critical issue is how spanking (or, in fact, any punishment) is used, more so than whether it is used. Physical abuse by an angry, uncontrolled parent will leave lasting emotional wounds and cultivate bitterness in a child. The balanced, prudent use of disciplinary spanking, however, is a deterrent to aggressive behavior with some children. Researchers at the Center for Family Research at Iowa State University studied 332 families to examine both the impact of corporal punishment and the quality of parental involvement on three adolescent outcomes—aggressiveness, delinquency, and psychological well-being. The researchers found a strong association between the quality of parenting and each of these three outcomes. Corporal punishment, however, was not adversely related to any of these outcomes. This study proves that quality of parenting is the chief determinant of favorable or unfavorable outcomes.

According to a study by Dan Olweus reported in Developmental Psychology in 1980, childhood aggressiveness is actually more closely linked to maternal permissiveness and negative criticism than to even abusive physical discipline.

It is unrealistic to expect that children would never hit others if their parents would only exclude spanking from their disciplinary options. Most toddlers (long before they are ever spanked) naturally attempt to hit others when conflict or frustration arises. The continuation of this behavior is largely determined by how the parent or caregiver responds. If correctly disciplined, the hitting will become less frequent. If ignored or ineffectively disciplined, the hitting will likely persist and even escalate. Thus, instead of contributing to greater violence, spanking can be a useful component in an overall plan to effectively teach a child to stop aggressive hitting.

ARGUMENT 3: Since parents often refrain from hitting until their anger or frustration reaches a certain point, the child learns that anger and frustration justify the use of physical force.

COUNTERPOINT: A 1995 study published in Pediatrics indicates that most parents who spank do not spank on impulse but purposefully spank their children with a belief in its effectiveness. Furthermore, the study revealed no significant correlation between the frequency of spanking and the anger reported by mothers. Actually, the mothers who reported being angry were not the same parents who spanked.

Reactive, impulsive hitting after losing control due to anger is unquestionably the wrong way for a parent to use corporal punishment. Eliminating all physical punishment in the home, however, would not remedy such explosive scenarios. It could even increase the problem.

When effective spanking is removed from a parent’s disciplinary repertoire, he or she is left with nagging, begging, belittling, and yelling as soon as the primary disciplinary measures, such as time-out and logical consequences, have failed. By contrast, if proper spanking is proactively used in conjunction with other disciplinary measures, better control of the particularly defiant child can be achieved and moments of exasperation are less likely to occur.

ARGUMENT 4: Physical punishment is harmful to a child.

COUNTERPOINT: Any disciplinary measure—physical, verbal or emotional—can harm a child when carried to an extreme. Excessive scolding and berating of a child by a parent is emotionally harmful. Excessive use of isolation (time-out) for unreasonable periods of time can humiliate a child and ruin the measure’s effectiveness.

Obviously, excessive or indiscriminate physical punishment is harmful and abusive. An appropriately administered spanking of a forewarned, disobedient child, however, is not harmful when administered in a loving, controlled manner.

Without the prudent use of spanking for the defiant child, a parent risks being inconsistent and rationalizing the child’s behavior. This inconsistent manner of parenting is confusing and harmful to the child and is damaging to the parent-child relationship. There is insufficient evidence that proper disciplinary spanking is harmful to the child.

DISCIPLINE: Training that corrects, molds or perfects moral character.

Discipline (regardless of the method) is effective only when it involves

• truth brought forth in love;

• confession by the guilty party;

• forgiveness by the parent who is responsible for the discipline;

• resolution for the original problem; and

• assurance of continuity of love.

A RGUMENT 5: Spanking teaches a child that “might makes right,” that power and strength are most important, and that the bigger can force their will upon the smaller.

COUNTERPOINT: Parental power is commonly exerted in routine child rearing, and spanking is only one example. Other situations where power and restraint are exercised by the average parent include:

• the young child who insists on running from his parent in a busy mall or parking lot

• the toddler who refuses to sit in his car seat

• the young patient who refuses to hold still as a vaccination is administered or as a laceration is repaired

Control over the child is necessary at times to ensure safety, health, and proper behavior. Classic child-rearing studies have shown that some degree of power assertion and control is essential for optimal child rearing. When power is exerted in the context of love and for the child’s benefit, the child will not perceive it as bullying or demeaning.

ARGUMENT 6: Spanking is an ineffective solution to misbehavior.

COUNTERPOINT: Though the specific use of appropriate spanking has rarely been studied, there is evidence of its short-term and long-term effectiveness. When combined with reasoning, the use of negative consequences (including spanking) has been shown to decrease the recurrence of misbehavior with preschool children.

In clinical field trials where parental spanking has been studied, it has consistently been found to reduce the subsequent frequency of noncompliance with time-out. Spanking as an enforcement of time-out is a component of several well-researched parent-training programs and popular parenting texts.

Dr. Diana Baumrind of the Institute of Human Development at the University of California–Berkeley conducted a decade-long study of families with children three to nine years old. Baumrind found that parents employing a balanced disciplinary style of firm control (including spanking) and positive encouragement experienced the most favorable outcome in their children. Parents taking extreme approaches to discipline (authoritarian types using excessive punishment with less encouragement or permissive types using little punishment and no spanking) were less successful.

Baumrind concluded that evidence from this study “did not indicate that negative reinforcement or corporal punishment per se were harmful or ineffective procedures, but rather the total patterns of parental control determined the effects on the child of these procedures.”

This approach of balanced, authoritative parenting employing the occasional use of spanking is advocated by several child-rearing experts. In the hands of loving parents, a spanking to the buttocks of a defiant toddler in appropriate settings is a powerful motivator to correct behavior and an effective deterrent to disobedience.

ARGUMENT 7: Spanking leads a parent to use harmful forms of corporal punishment that lead to physical child abuse.

COUNTERPOINT: The abuse potential when loving parents use appropriate disciplinary spanking is very low. Since parents have a natural affection for their children, they are more prone to underuse spanking than overuse it. Both empirical data and professional opinion oppose any causal relationship between spanking and child abuse.

Surveys indicate that 70 percent to 90 percent of parents of preschoolers use spanking, yet the incidence of physical child abuse in America is about 5 percent. Statistically, the two practices are far apart. Furthermore, according to the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, over the past decade reports of child abuse have steadily risen while approval for parental spanking has steadily declined.

Teaching parents appropriate spanking may actually reduce child abuse, according to Dr. Robert E. Larzelere in his review article on corporal punishment published in 1994 in Debating Children’s Lives. Parents who are ill-equipped to control their child’s behavior, or those who take a more permissive approach (refusing to use spanking), may be more prone to explosive attacks on their child, according to research.

Parental child abuse is an interactive process involving parental competence, parental and child temperaments, and situational demands. Abusive parents are more angry, depressed, and impulsive, and emphasize punishment as the predominant means of discipline. Abused children are more aggressive and less compliant than children from nonabusive families. There is less interaction between family members in abusive families, and an abusive mother displays more negative than positive behavior. The etiology of abusive parenting is multifactorial and cannot be simply explained by a parent’s use of spanking.

In a reply to spanking opposition in a 1995 issue of Pediatrics, Drs. Lawrence S. Wissow and Debra Roter of the Johns Hopkins University’s pediatrics department acknowledge that a definitive link between spanking and child abuse has yet to be established.

Finally, the Swedish experiment to reduce child abuse by banning spanking seems to be failing. In 1980, one year after this ban was adopted, the rate of child beatings was twice that of the United States. According to a 1995 report from the government organization Statistics Sweden, police reports of child abuse by family members rose fourfold from 1984 to 1994, while reports of teen violence increased nearly sixfold.

Most experts agree that spanking and child abuse are not on the same continuum but are very different entities. With parenting, it is the “user” and how a measure is used much more than the measure used that determine the outcome of the disciplinary effort. Clearly, spanking can be safely used in the discipline of young children with an excellent outcome. The proper use of spanking may actually reduce a parent’s risk of abusing the child.

ARGUMENT 8: Spanking is never necessary.

C OUNTERPOINT: All children need a combination of encouragement and correction as they are reared to become socially responsible individuals. In order for correction to deter disobedient behavior, the consequence imposed upon the child must outweigh the pleasure of the disobedient act. For very compliant children, milder forms of correction will suffice, and spanking may never be necessary. For more defiant children who refuse to comply with or be persuaded by milder consequences such as time-out, spanking is useful, effective, and appropriate.

Summary

Disciplinary spanking should be evaluated from a factual, objective perspective. It must be distinguished from abusive, harmful forms of corporal punishment. Appropriate disciplinary spanking can play an important role in optimal child development and has been found in prospective studies to be a part of the parenting style associated with the best outcomes. There is no convincing evidence that mild spanking is harmful. Indeed, spanking is supported by history, research and a majority of primary care physicians.15

Many thanks to Drs. Trumbull and Ravenel for allowing us to reprint this enlightening article. Both men are board-certified pediatricians in private practice and members of the Section on Developmental and Behavior Pediatrics of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I’ll conclude by sharing a related “Parent’s Guide,” also written by Dr. Trumbull. It offers nine specific guidelines on the use of disciplinary spanking.

PARENT’S GUIDE

Guidelines to Disciplinary Spanking

If your child is unruly, and you’re at your wit’s end, take a break and consider these guidelines before you spank your child.

1. Spanking should be used selectively for clear, deliberate misbehavior, particularly that which arises from a child’s persistent defiance of a parent’s instruction. It should be used only when the child receives at least as much encouragement and praise for good behavior as correction for problem behavior.

2. Milder forms of discipline, such as verbal correction, time-out and logical consequences, should be used initially, followed by spanking when noncompliance persists. Spanking has shown to be an effective method of enforcing time-out with the child who refuses to comply.

3. Only a parent (or in exceptional situations, someone else who has an intimate relationship of authority with the child) should administer a spanking.

4. Spanking should not be administered on impulse or when a parent is out of control. A spanking should always be motivated by love for the purpose of teaching and correcting, never for revenge.

5. Spanking is inappropriate before 15 months of age and is usually not necessary until after 18 months. It should be less necessary after 6 years, and rarely, if ever, used after 10 years of age.

6. After 10 months of age, one slap to the hand of a stubborn crawler or toddler may be necessary to stop serious misbehavior when distraction and removal have failed. This is particularly the case when the forbidden object is immovable and dangerous, such as a hot oven door or an electrical outlet.

7. Spanking should always be a planned action, not a reaction, by the parent and should follow a deliberate procedure.

• The child should be forewarned of the spanking for designated problem behaviors.

• Spanking should always be administered in private (bedroom or restroom) to avoid public humiliation or embarrassment.

• One or two spanks should be administered to the buttocks. This is followed by embracing the child and calmly reviewing the offense and the desired behavior in an effort to reestablish a warm relationship.

8. Spanking should leave only transient redness of the skin and should never cause physical injury.

9. If properly administered spankings are ineffective, other appropriate disciplinary responses should be tried, or the parent should seek professional help. A parent should never increase the intensity of spankings.16

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: I have to fight with my nine-year-old daughter to get her to do anything she doesn’t want to do. It’s so unpleasant that I’ve about decided not to take her on. Why should I try to force her to work and help around the house? What’s the downside of my just going with the flow and letting her off the hook?

A: It is typical for nine-year-olds to not want to work, of course, but they still need to. If you permit a pattern of irresponsibility to prevail in your child’s formative years, she may fall behind in her developmental timetable leading toward the full responsibilities of adult living. As a ten-year-old, she won’t be able to do anything unpleasant since she has never been required to stay with a task until it is completed. She won’t know how to give to anyone else because she’s thought only of herself. She’ll find it hard to make decisions or control her own impulses. A few years from now, she will steamroll into adolescence and then adulthood completely unprepared for the freedom and obligations she will find there. Your daughter will have had precious little training for those pressing responsibilities of maturity.

Obviously, I’ve painted a worst-case scenario with regard to your daughter. You still have plenty of opportunity to help her avoid such an outcome. I just hope your desire for harmony doesn’t lead you to do what will be harmful to her in later years.

Q: We have an adopted girl who came to us when she was four years old. She is very difficult to handle and does pretty much what she pleases. For us to make her obey would be very unpleasant for her, and frankly we don’t feel we have the right to do that. She has been through a lot in her short life. Besides, we’re not her real parents. Do you think she’ll be okay if we just give her a lot of love and attention?

A: I’m afraid what you have is a formula for serious problems with this girl later on. The danger is in seeing yourselves as substitute or stand-in parents who don’t have the right to lead her. That is a mistake. Since you have legally adopted this child, you are her “real” parents, and your failure to see yourselves that way may be setting up the defiant behavior you mentioned. It is a common error made by parents of older adopted children. They pity their youngsters too much to confront them. They feel that life has already been too hard on them, and they must not make things worse by discipline and occasional punishment. As a result, they are tentative and permissive with a child who is crying out for leadership.

Transplanted children have the same need for guidance and discipline as those remaining with their biological parents. One of the surest ways to make them feel insecure is to treat them like they are different, unusual, or brittle. If the parents view such a child as an unfortunate waif to be shielded, he will tend to see himself that way too.

Parents of sick and disabled children often make this same mistake. They find discipline harder to implement because of the tenderness they feel for the child. Thus, a boy or girl with a heart condition or a terminal illness can become a little terror, simply because the usual behavioral boundaries are not established and defended. It must be remembered that the need to be led and governed is almost universal in childhood, and it isn’t lessened by other problems and difficulties in life. In some cases, the desire for boundaries is actually increased by other troubles, for it is through loving control that parents build security and a sense of personal worth in a child.

Returning to the question, I advise you to love that little girl like crazy—and hold her to the same standards of behavior that you would your own flesh and blood. Remember, you are her parents!

Q: There is a child living near us who is not being harmed physically, but her parents are destroying her emotionally. You can’t believe the screams and accusations that come from their house. So far, Child Protective Services has not intervened to rescue the little girl. Isn’t it illegal to berate a child like this?

A: It is illegal in most states to abuse a child emotionally, but bad parenting can be difficult to define. Unfortunately, it is not illegal to raise a boy or girl without love unless neglect can be documented. It is usually not illegal to humiliate a child either. These forms of rejection may be even more harmful than some forms of physical abuse, but they are tougher to prove and are often not prosecutable. When emotional abuse occurs, as with the girl who lives near you, there may be no way to rescue her from this tragic situation. Nevertheless, I would report the incident to Child Protective Services and hope for intervention.

Q: What advice would you give parents who recognize a tendency within themselves to abuse their kids? Maybe they’re afraid they’ll get carried away when spanking a disobedient child. Do you think they should avoid corporal punishment as a form of discipline?

A: That’s exactly what I think. Anyone who has ever abused a child—or has ever felt herself losing control during a spanking—should not put herself in such a situation. Anyone who has a violent temper that at times becomes unmanageable should not use that approach. Anyone who secretly enjoys the administration of corporal punishment should not be the one to implement it. And grandparents (“Grandpop” from the poem in chapter 8 included) probably should not spank their grandkids, unless the parents have given them permission to do so.

Q: Do you think you should spank a child for every act of disobedience or defiance?

A: Certainly not. Corporal punishment should be a rather infrequent occurrence. There is an appropriate time for a child to sit in a chair to think about his misbehavior, or he might be deprived of a privilege, sent to his room for a time-out, or made to work when he had planned to play. In other words, you should vary your response to misbehavior, always trying to stay one step ahead of the child. Your goal is to continually react in a way that benefits the child and is in accordance with his “crime.” In this regard, there is no substitute for wisdom and tact in the parenting role.

Q: On what part of the body would you administer a spanking?

A: It should be confined to the buttocks area, where permanent damage is very unlikely. I don’t believe you should slap a child on the face or jerk him around by the arm. If you spank a child only on the behind, you will be less likely to inflict any physical injury on him.

Q : How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished or spanked? Is there a limit?

A: Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying can quickly change from inner sobbing to an expression of protest aimed at punishing the enemy. Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting them interested in something else.

Q: There is some controversy over whether a parent should spank with his or her hand or with some other object, such as a belt or a paddle. What do you recommend?

A: I recommend a neutral object of some type. For those who disagree on this point, I’d encourage them to do what seems right. It is not a critical issue to me. The reason I suggest a switch (a small, flexible twig from a tree) or paddle is because the hand should be seen as an object of love—to hold, hug, pat, and caress. If you’re used to suddenly disciplining with the hand, your child may not know when she’s about to be swatted and can develop a pattern of flinching when you make an unexpected move. This is not a problem if you take the time to use a neutral object.

My mother always used a small switch, which could not do any permanent damage. But it stung enough to send a very clear message. One day when I had pushed her to the limit, she actually sent me to the backyard to cut my own instrument of punishment. I brought back a tiny little twig about seven inches long. She could not have generated anything more than a tickle with it. Mom never sent me on that fool’s errand again.

Q: Is there an age when spankings can begin?

A: There is no excuse for spanking babies or children younger than fifteen to eighteen months of age. Shaking an infant can cause brain damage and even death! But midway through the second year (eighteen months), boys and girls become capable of understanding what you’re telling them to do or not do. They can then very gently be held responsible for how they behave. Suppose a strong-willed child is reaching for an electric socket or something that will hurt him. You say, “No!” but he just looks at you and continues reaching toward it. You can see the mischievous smile on his face as he thinks, I’m going to do it anyway! I’d encourage you to speak firmly so that he knows he is pushing the limit. If he persists, slap his fingers just enough to sting. A small amount of pain goes a long way at that age and begins to introduce to the child the reality of the physical world and the importance of listening to what you say.

Through the next eighteen months, gradually establish yourself as a benevolent boss: mean what you say and say what you mean. Contrary to what you may have read in popular literature, this firm but loving approach to child rearing will not harm a toddler or make him violent. On the contrary, it is most likely to produce a healthy, confident child.

Q: I have spanked my children for their disobedience, and it didn’t seem to help. Does this approach fail with some children?

A: Children are so tremendously variable that it is sometimes hard to believe that they are all members of the same human family. Some kids can be crushed with nothing more than a stern look; others seem to require strong and even painful disciplinary measures to make a vivid impression. This difference usually results from the degree to which a child needs adult approval and acceptance. The primary parental task is to see things as the child perceives them, thereby tailoring the discipline to the child’s unique needs. Accordingly, it is appropriate to punish a boy or girl when he or she knows it is deserved.

In a direct answer to your question, disciplinary measures usually fail because of fundamental errors in their application. It is possible for twice the amount of punishment to yield half the results. I have made a study of situations in which parents have told me that their children disregard punishment and continue to misbehave. There are four basic reasons for this lack of success:

1. The most common error is whimsical discipline. When the rules change every day and when punishment for misbehavior is capricious and inconsistent, the effort to change behavior is undermined. There is no inevitable consequence to be anticipated. This entices children to see if they can beat the system. In society at large, it also encourages criminal behavior among those who believe they will not face the bar of justice.

2. Sometimes a child is more strong-willed than his parent—and they both know it. He just might be tough enough to realize that a confrontation with his mom or dad is really a struggle of wills. If he can withstand the pressure and not buckle during a major battle, he can eliminate that form of punishment as a tool in the parent’s repertoire. Does he think through this process on a conscious level? Usually not, but he understands it intuitively. He realizes that a spanking must not be allowed to succeed. Thus, he stiffens his little neck and guts it out. He may even refuse to cry and may say, “That didn’t hurt.” The parent concludes in exasperation, “Spanking doesn’t work for my child.”

3. The spanking may be too gentle. If it doesn’t hurt, it doesn’t motivate a child to avoid the consequence next time. A slap with the hand on the bottom of a diapered two-year-old is not a deterrent to anything. Be sure the child gets the message—while being careful not to go too far.

4. For a few children, spankings are simply not effective. A child who has attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for example, may be even more wild and unmanageable after corporal punishment. Also, a child who has been abused may identify loving discipline with past abuse. Finally, the very sensitive child might need a different approach. Let me emphasize once more that children are unique. The only way to raise them correctly is to understand each boy or girl as an individual and design parenting techniques to fit the needs and characteristics of that particular child.

Q: Do you think corporal punishment eventually will be outlawed?

A : I don’t doubt that an effort will be made to end it. In fact, an attempt to outlaw corporal punishment was made in California in 1982, until the politicians were told by parents to back off.17 The tragedy of child abuse has made it difficult for people to understand the difference between viciousness to kids and constructive, positive forms of punishment. Also, there are many “children’s-rights advocates” in the Western world who will not rest until they have obtained the legal right to tell parents how to raise their children. In Sweden, corporal punishment and other forms of discipline are already prohibited by law.18 Canadian courts have flirted with the same decision but ruled otherwise.19 The American media has worked to convince the public that all spanking is tantamount to child abuse and therefore should be outlawed. If corporal punishment is banned, it will be a sad day for families, and especially for children!

Chapter NINE BITTER BROTHERS & SURLY SISTERS

I F PARENTS WERE ASKED to indicate the most irritating feature of child rearing, I’m convinced that sibling rivalry would win hands down. It has the capacity of driving otherwise sane and self-controlled adults a little crazy. Children are not content just to hate each other in private. They attack one another like miniature warriors, mobilizing their troops and probing for a weakness in the defensive line. They argue, hit, kick, scream, grab, taunt, tattle, and sabotage the opposing forces. I knew one child who deeply resented being sick with a cold while his older sibling was healthy, so he secretly blew his nose on the mouthpiece of his brother’s clarinet! The big losers from such combat, of course, are the harassed parents who must listen to the noise of the battlefield and then try to patch up the wounded.

Sibling rivalry is not new, of course. It was responsible for the first murder on record (when Cain killed Abel) and has been present in virtually every home with more than one child from that time to this. The underlying source of this conflict is old-fashioned jealousy and competition between children. An excellent illustration of this irritating situation was written by Willard and Marguerite Beecher in their book Parents on the Run. They wrote:

It was once believed that if parents would explain to a child that he was having a little brother or sister, he would not resent it. He was told that his parents had enjoyed him so much that they wanted to increase their happiness. This was supposed to avoid jealous competition and rivalry. It did not work. Why should it? Needless to say, if a man tells his wife he has loved her so much that he now plans to bring another wife into the home to “increase his happiness,” she would not be immune to jealousy. On the contrary, the fight would just begin—in exactly the same fashion as it does with children.1

We can learn some valuable lessons about siblings and how they interact with one another from an elementary principle of physics: A hotter object nearby will gradually raise the temperature of a cooler one. Do you get the picture? A rebellious child usually makes the compliant youngster harder to handle. That is especially true if the strong-willed child is older. It is not unusual for parents to realize that their fun-loving, go-along-to-get-along boy or girl is starting to pick up the aggressive attitudes and behavior of the tougher brother or sister. In fact, every member of a family is influenced by a particularly difficult youngster, usually for the worse.

There is another factor that can be irritating and frustrating to moms and dads. Strong-willed and compliant kids often resent each other deeply. The tougher individuals dislike their prissy siblings who do everything right and are punished far less often. The easy children, on the other hand, get sick and tired of seeing the rebellious sib take on Mom or Dad and often come out the winner. The compliant children are also expected by them to “just take it” at times, because parents are weary of fighting with (and losing to) the rebellious youngster. The old adage that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” applies here. Strong-willed kids tend to get away with more because they simply never give up and their parents become exasperated just trying to hang in there.

I described this interactive effect in my book Parenting Isn’t for Cowards, especially as it relates to the health and well-being of the compliant child in the world of a strong-willed sibling. The compliant child “often has difficulties holding his own with his siblings, [and he] is more likely to internalize his anger and look for ways to reroute it.”2

This represents a serious (but very quiet) threat to the well-being of the compliant child. My greatest concern for him is the ease with which he can be underestimated, ignored, exploited, or shortchanged at home. Haven’t you seen two-child families where one youngster was a stick of dynamite who blew up regularly and the other was an all-star sweetheart? Under those circumstances it is not unusual for parents to take their cooperative sibling for granted. If there is an unpleasant job to be done, he will be expected to do it. Mom and Dad just don’t have the energy to fight with the tiger.

If one child is to be chosen for a pleasant experience, it will probably go to the brattier of the two. He would scream bloody murder if excluded. When circumstances require one child to sacrifice or do without, you know who will be elected. Parents who favor the strong-willed child in this way are aware that they are being unfair, but their sense of justice has yielded to the pressures of practicality. They are simply too depleted and frustrated to risk irritating the tougher kid.

The consequences of such inequity should be obvious. Even though the compliant child goes along with the program and does not complain, he may accumulate a volume of resentment through the years. Isn’t that what seems to have occurred to the brother of the Prodigal Son, as described by Jesus in Luke 15:11-32? He was the hardworking, responsible, compliant member of the family. Apparently, his kid brother was irresponsible, flighty, and very strong-willed. If we may be permitted to extrapolate a bit from the biblical account, it seems likely that there was little love lost between these brothers, even before the prodigal’s impulsive departure.

The disciplined elder brother resented the spoiled brat who got everything he asked for. Nevertheless, the older brother kept his thoughts to himself. He would not want to upset his father, whom he respected enormously. Then came that incredible day when little brother demanded his entire inheritance in one lump sum. The compliant son overheard the conversation and gasped in shock. What audacity! he thought. Then, to his amazement he heard his father grant the playboy’s request. He could hear the clink of numerous gold coins being counted. The elder brother was furious. We can only assume that the departure of this sibling meant Big Bud would have to handle double chores and work longer hours in the fields. It wasn’t fair that the load should fall on him. Nevertheless, he said nothing. Compliant people are inclined to hold their feelings inside, but they are capable of harboring great resentment.

The years passed slowly as the elder brother labored to maintain the farm. The father had grown older by then, placing a heavier strain on this firstborn son. Every day he labored from dawn to dusk in the hot sun. Occasionally, he thought about his brother living it up in the far country, and he was briefly tempted. But, no. He would do what was right. Pleasing his father was the most important thing in his life.

Then, as we remember, the strong-willed goof-off ran out of money and became exceedingly hungry. He thought of his mom’s cooking and the warmth of his father’s fire. He clutched his rags around him and began the long journey home. When he was yet afar off, his father ran to meet him—embracing him and placing the royal robes around his shoulders. The fatted calf was killed and a great feast planned. That did it. The compliant brother could take no more. The Prodigal Son had secured through his folly what the elder brother could not gain through his discipline: the approval and affection of his father. His spirit was wounded!

Whether my interpretation of this parable is faithful to the meaning of the Scripture will be left to the theologians. Of this I am certain, however: Strong-willed and compliant siblings have played out this drama since the days of Cain and Abel, and the responsible brother or sister often feels like the loser. He holds his feelings inside and then pays a price for storing them. He is more susceptible as an adult to ulcers, hypertension, colitis, migraine headaches, and a wide range of other psychosomatic illnesses. Furthermore, his sense of utter powerlessness can drive his anger underground. It may emerge in less obvious quests for control.

It is not necessary or healthy to allow children to destroy each other and make life miserable for the adults around them. Sibling rivalry is difficult to cure, but it certainly can be treated. Toward that end, let me offer three suggestions that should be helpful in achieving at least a state of armed neutrality at home.

1. Don’t inflame the natural jealousy of children

Sibling rivalry is a virtual inevitability, especially between strong-willed kids, but at least Mom and Dad should seek to avoid the situations that make it worse. One of these red flags is comparing children unfavorably with each other, since they are always looking for a competitive edge. The question in a child’s mind is not, “How am I doing?” it is, “How am I doing compared with Mike [or Blake or Sarah]?” The issue is not how fast a child can run, but who crosses the finish line first. A boy does not care how tall he is; he is vitally interested in who is tallest. Children systematically measure themselves against their peers on everything from skateboarding ability to who has the most friends. Both sexes are especially sensitive to any failure that occurs and is talked about openly within their own family. Accordingly, parents who want a little peace at home should guard against comparative comments that routinely favor one child over another. To violate this principle is to set up even greater rivalry between them.

Perhaps an illustration will help make the case. When I was about ten years old, I loved to play with a couple of dogs that belonged to two families in the neighborhood. One was a pug bulldog mix with a very bad attitude and a low dog IQ. His one big trick was that he was crazy about chasing and retrieving tennis balls. The other dog was a sweet, passive Scottie named Baby. He didn’t have any tricks at all, except to bark from morning to night. One day as I was tossing the ball for the bulldog, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to throw it in the direction of Baby. That turned out to be a very dumb idea. The ball rolled under the Scottie with the grouch in hot pursuit. The bulldog went straight for Baby’s throat and hung on. It was an awful scene. Neighbors came running from everywhere as the Scottie screamed in terror. It took ten minutes and a garden hose for the adults to pry loose the bulldog’s grip. By then Baby was almost dead. He spent two weeks in the animal hospital, and I spent two weeks in the doghouse. I was hated by the entire town.

I have thought about that experience many times and have since recognized its application to most human relationships. Indeed, it is just as simple to precipitate a fight between people as it is between dogs. All that is necessary is to toss a ball, symbolically, in the direction of one of the rivals and then step back and watch the brawl. It can be done by repeating negative comments made by one about the other or by baiting the first in the presence of the second. It can be accomplished in business by assigning similar territory to two managers. They will tear each other to pieces in the places where their responsibilities overlap. Alas, it happens every day.

This principle is especially applicable to siblings. It is remarkably easy to make them mortal enemies. All a parent must do is toss a ball in the wrong direction. The natural antagonism and competitiveness of kids will do the rest.

Children and teens are particularly uptight about the matter of physical attractiveness and body characteristics. It is highly inflammatory to commend one child at the expense of the other. Suppose, for example, that Rachel is permitted to hear this casual remark about her sister: “Becky sure is going to be a gorgeous girl.” The very fact that Rachel was not mentioned will probably establish the two girls as rivals. If there is a significant difference in beauty between the two, you can be sure that Rachel has already concluded, Yeah, I’m the ugly one. When her fears are then confirmed by her peers, resentment and jealousy are generated.

Beauty is the most significant factor in the self-esteem of children and teenagers. Anything that parents utter on this subject within the hearing of children should be screened carefully. It has the power to make siblings hate one another.

Intelligence is another hot button for children. It is not uncommon to hear parents say in front of their children, “I think Alissa is actually brighter than Mark.” Bang! Here comes another battle. Adults sometimes find it difficult to comprehend how powerful that kind of comparison can be in a child’s mind. Even when the comments are unplanned and spoken offhandedly, they convey how a child is seen within the family. We are all vulnerable to the power of that bit of information.

Children (especially teens) are also extremely competitive with regard to physical attributes and athletic abilities. Those who are slower, weaker, and less coordinated than their brothers or sisters are rarely able to accept “second best” with grace and dignity. Consider, for example, the following note given to me by the mother of two boys. It was written by her nine-year-old son to his eight-year-old brother the evening after the younger child had beaten him in a race.

Dear Jim:

I am the greatest and your the badest. And I can beat everybody in a race and you can’t beat anybody in a race. I’m the smartest and your the dumbest. I’m the best sport player and your the badest sport player. And your also a hog. I can beat anybody up. And that’s the truth. And that’s the end of this story.

Yours truly,

Richard

This note is humorous to me because Richard’s motive was so poorly disguised. He had been badly stung by his humiliation on the field of honor, so he came home and raised the battle flags. He probably spent the next eight weeks looking for opportunities to fire torpedoes into Jim’s soft underbelly. Such is the nature of humankind.

Here is another example: One of my assistants at Focus on the Family has an older brother who was a child prodigy at music. The elder sibling was playing Mozart sonatas on the piano at age six, while his younger brother and sister were lucky to plunk out “Chopsticks.” At recital after recital, they would hear acclamation for their brother’s abilities and then the offhand remark, “Oh, you did okay too.”

After seven years of pleading and begging, the younger brother finally convinced his mother that he would never rival his brother at the piano and that he needed to find his own identity by playing the saxophone. A few weeks later, he brought home his saxophone and started to practice. Of course, since he was just learning the notes, he was not quite ready to solo with a band. His older brother, with whom he had always had a good relationship (and does to this day), came over, picked up the saxophone, and at the drop of a hat, played like someone who had been practicing for fifteen years. The younger brother, totally humiliated, started a knock-down-drag-out fight. Eventually, the younger brother became quite good at the saxophone—and developed a healthy identity of his own. But a less confident child might have pulled into a shell of resentment and refused to try anything perceived as risky. So much of human behavior turns on these rather straightforward principles.

Am I suggesting, then, that parents eliminate all aspects of individuality within family life or that healthy competition should be discouraged? Of course not. Competition drives us to reach for the best that is within. I am saying, however, that in matters of beauty, brains, athletic ability, and anything else valued in the family or neighborhood, children should know that in their parents’ eyes, they are respected and have equal worth with their siblings. Praise and criticism at home should be distributed as evenly as possible, although some children will inevitably be more successful in the outside world. Finally, we should remember that children do not build fortresses around strengths—they construct them to protect weakness. Thus, when a child begins to brag and boast and attack her siblings, she is revealing the threats she feels at that point. Our sensitivity to those signals will help minimize the potential for jealousy within our children.

2. Establish a workable system of justice at home

Sibling rivalry is also at its worst when there are inadequate or inconsistently applied rules that govern the interaction between kids—when the “lawbreakers” do not get caught, or, if apprehended, are set free without standing trial. It is important to understand that laws in a society are established and enforced for the purpose of protecting people from each other. Likewise, a family is a minisociety with the same requirements for property rights and physical protection.

For purposes of illustration, suppose that I live in a community where there is no established law. Police officers do not exist, and there are no courts to whom disagreements can be appealed. Under those circumstances, my neighbor and I can abuse each other with impunity. He can take my lawn mower and throw rocks through my windows, while I steal the peaches from his favorite tree and dump my leaves over his fence. This kind of mutual antagonism has a way of escalating day by day, becoming ever more violent with the passage of time. When permitted to run its natural course, as in early American history, the end result can be feudal hatred and murder.

Individual families are similar to societies in their need for law and order. In the absence of justice, “neighboring” siblings begin to assault one another. The older child is bigger and tougher, which allows her to oppress her younger brothers and sisters. But the junior member of the family is not without weapons of his own. He can strike back by breaking the toys and prized possessions of the older sibling and interfering when friends are visiting. Mutual hatred then erupts like an angry volcano, spewing its destructive contents on everyone in its path.

Too often, however, children who appeal to their parents for intervention are left to fight it out among themselves. Mom or Dad may not have sufficient disciplinary control to enforce their judgments. In other families, they are so exasperated with constant bickering among siblings that they refuse to get involved. In still others, they require an older child to live with an admitted injustice “because your sister is smaller than you.” Thus, they tie the older child’s hands and render him utterly defenseless against the mischief of his younger sibling. And in the many families today in which both parents work, the children may be busily disassembling each other at home with no supervision whatsoever.

I will say it again: One of the most important responsibilities of parents is to establish an equitable system of justice and a balance of power at home. There should be reasonable rules that are enforced fairly for each member of the family. For purposes of illustration, let me list the beginnings of a set of “laws” on which to build a protective shield around each child. They can never be implemented perfectly, but this is a place to start:

• A child is never allowed to make fun of the other in a destructive way. Period! This must be an inflexible rule with no exceptions.

• Each child’s room is his or her private territory. There must be locks on both doors, and permission to enter is a revocable privilege. (Families with more than one child in each bedroom can allocate available living space for each youngster.)

• As much as possible, the older child is not permitted to tease the younger child.

• The younger child is forbidden from harassing the older child.

• The children are not required to play with each other when they prefer to be alone or with other friends.

• Parents mediate any genuine conflict as quickly as possible, being careful to show impartiality and extreme fairness.

As with any system of justice, this plan requires (1) respect for leadership of the parents, (2) willingness of the parents to mediate, (3) reasonable consistency over time, and (4) occasional enforcement or punishment. When this approach is accomplished with love, the emotional tone of the home can be changed from one of hatred to (at least) tolerance.

3. Recognize that the hidden “target” of sibling rivalry is you

The third general principle is a matter of understanding how kids think. Their conflict often becomes a way of manipulating parents. Quarreling and fighting provide an opportunity for both children to capture adult attention. It has been written, “Some children had rather be wanted for murder than not wanted at all.” Toward this end, a pair of obnoxious kids can tacitly agree to bug their parents until they get a response— even if it is an angry reaction.

One father told me about the time his son and his nephew began to argue and then beat each other with their fists. Both fathers were nearby and decided to let the fight run its natural course. During the first lull in the action, one of the boys glanced sideways toward the passive men and said, “Isn’t anybody going to stop us before we get hurt?!” The fight, you see, was something neither boy wanted. Their violent combat was directly related to the presence of the two adults and would have taken a different form if the boys had been alone. Children will “hook” their parents’ attention and intervention in this way.

Believe it or not, this form of sibling rivalry is easiest to control. The parents must simply render the behavior unprofitable to each participant. I would recommend that you review the problem (for example, a morning full of bickering) with the children and then say, “Now, listen carefully. If the two of you want to pick on each other and make yourselves miserable, then be my guests [assuming there is a fairly equal balance of power between them]. Go outside and argue until you’re exhausted. But it’s not going to occur under my feet anymore. It’s over! And you know that I mean business when I make that kind of statement. Do we understand each other?”

Having made the boundaries clear, I would act decisively the instant either child returned to his bickering in my presence. If the children had separate bedrooms, I would confine one child to each room for at least thirty minutes of complete boredom without radio, computer, or television. Or I would assign one to clean the garage and the other to mow the lawn. Or I would make them both take an unscheduled nap. My purpose would be to make them believe me the next time I asked for peace and tranquility.

It is simply not necessary to permit children to destroy the joy of living. And what is most surprising, children are the happiest when their parents enforce reasonable limits with love and dignity. But there is nothing simple when it comes to raising children. Obviously, it is no job for cowards.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: We are planning our family very carefully and want to space the children properly. Is there an ideal age span that will bring greater harmony between them?

A: Children who are two years apart and of the same sex are more likely to be competitive with one another. On the other hand, they are also more likely to enjoy mutual companionship. If your babies are four or more years apart, there will be less camaraderie between them, but you’ll at least have only one child in college at a time. My evasive reply to your question reflects my personal bias: There are many more important reasons for planning a baby at a particular time than the age of those already born. Of greater significance are the health of the mother, the parents’ desire for another child, financial considerations, and the stability of the marriage. The relative age of the siblings is not one of the major determiners, in my opinion.

Q: My older child is a great student and earns straight As year after year. Her younger sister, now in the sixth grade, is completely bored in school and won’t even try. The frustrating thing is that the younger girl is probably brighter than her older sister. Why would she refuse to apply her abilities like this?

A: There could be many reasons for your younger daughter’s academic disinterest, but let me suggest the most probable explanation. Children will often refuse to compete when they think they are likely to place second instead of first. Therefore, a younger child may avoid challenging an older sibling in her area of greatest strength. If Son Number One is a great athlete, then Son Number Two may be more interested in collecting butterflies. If Daughter Number One is an accomplished pianist, then Daughter Number Two may scorn music and take up tennis. This is the exact scenario that I described in the story about my assistant and his older brother. The younger sibling did not have the desire (or the ability) to compete against his older sibling at the piano and desperately wanted to do something else in which he would not be compared unfavorably.

This rule does not always hold true, of course, depending on the child’s fear of failure and the way he estimates his chances of competing successfully. If his confidence is high, he may blatantly wade into the territory owned by his big brother, determined to do even better. However, the more typical response is to seek a new area of compensation that is not yet dominated by a family superstar.

If this explanation fits the behavior of your younger daughter, then it would be wise to accept something less than perfection from her school performance. Siblings need not fit the same mold—nor can we force them to do so.

Q: I am a single parent with two strong-willed young boys who are just tearing each other apart. I think I could deal with their sibling rivalry if only I had some encouragement and practical help in dealing with everyday life. The pressure of working, cooking dinner, and doing the job of two parents leaves me sapped and unable to deal with their constant bickering. What encouragement can you offer to those of us who are single parents? Each day seems more difficult than the one before it. Can you help plead our case to those who don’t understand what we’re facing?

A: According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, there are now over 12 million single-parent homes in the United States.3 In my view, single parents have the toughest job in the universe! Hercules himself would tremble at the range of responsibilities people like you must handle every day. It’s difficult enough for two parents with a solid marriage and stable finances to satisfy the demands of parenting. For a single mother or father to do that task excellently over a period of years is evidence of heroism.

The greatest problem faced by single parents, especially a young mother like yourself, is the overwhelming amount of work to be done. Earning a living, fixing meals, caring for kids, helping with homework, cleaning the house, paying bills, repairing the car, handling insurance, doing the banking, preparing the income tax returns, shopping, etc., can require twelve hours or more a day. She must continue that schedule seven days a week all year long, sometimes with no support from family or anyone else. It’s enough to exhaust the strongest and healthiest woman. Then where does she find time and energy to meet her own social and emotional needs—and how does she develop the friendships on which that part of her life depends? Single parenting is no easier for fathers, who may find themselves trying to comb their daughter’s hair and explain menstruation to their preteen girls.

There is only one answer to the pressures single parents face. It is for the rest of us to give these moms and dads a helping hand. They need highly practical assistance, including the friendship of two-parent families who will take their children on occasion to free up some time.

Single moms need the help of young men who will play catch with their fatherless boys and take them to the school soccer game. They need men who will fix the brakes on the minivan and patch the leaky roof. On the other hand, single dads need someone who can help them nurture their children, and if they have a daughter, teach her how to be a lady.

Single parents need prayer partners who will hold them accountable in their walk with the Lord and bear their burdens with them. They need an extended family of believers to care for them, lift them up, and remind them of their priorities. Perhaps most important, single parents need to know that the Lord is mindful of their circumstances.

Clearly, I believe it is the responsibility of those of us in the church to assist you with your parenting responsibilities. This requirement is implicit in Jesus’ commandment that we love and support the needy in all walks of life. He said, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). That puts things in perspective. Our efforts on behalf of a fatherless or motherless child are seen by Jesus Christ as a direct service to Himself!

This biblical assignment is even more explicitly stated in James 1:27: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress.”

Thankfully, churches today are becoming more sensitive to the needs of single parents. More congregations are offering programs and ministries geared to the unique concerns of those with particular needs. I’d advise all single parents to find such a church or fellowship group and make themselves at home there. Christian fellowship and support can be the key to survival.

,

DBFA 615

Research Paper Assignment Instructions

Overview

You will write a Research Paper Assignment focusing on the general topic of deviance and violence as it applies to child/adolescent development. The Research Paper Assignment will primarily discuss assessment and treatment strategies primarily, as well as proactive parenting interventions. You must select a primary focus from the following issues:

· Oppositional Defiant Disorder

· Explosive Children

· Conduct Disorder

· Sexual Addiction in Children/Adolescents

· Bullying

· ADHD

· (Other topics with the professor’s permission)

Instructions

You will complete a minimum 10-page Research Paper Assignment in current APA format related to the focus of the course and course material. The Research Paper Assignment should be a minimum of 10 pages in length (not including Title Page and References page) and follow APA guidelines, with at least 5 supporting sources including research/journal articles. The paper must close with an appropriate conclusion summarizing the major observations from the research and suggestions for additional study of the topic

Research Paper: Part 1 – Topic Assignment

Topic – Submit a topic with a 300-word rationale detailing why the topic is relevant to the course and its application to current family, faith, and the future. Include at least five supporting sources.

Be sure to review the appropriate Research Paper Grading Rubric before you begin each part of the Research Paper Assignment.

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Page 1 of 2