spanking

Reality just isn't that simple

and what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
In the long run, nothing. But there's no reason to go compounding mistakes.
if one method doesn't work, you try something else.
Click to expand...
This is a method in and of itself. Many parents use a different method, which goes approximately, "You do it this way or you get tanned."

Myself, I won't know where the line to violence is until I fail and cross it.
if one expects common sense from a child, or quick obedience, there's something wrong with that person.
Click to expand...
I think that's a rather simpleminded way of looking at it.

One can predict certain stimulus-response effects; one need not hold out for common sense or logic. Furthermore, whence comes the primary influence of common sense or logic?

I think the hot stove argument is ridiculous. Your child might hurt herself, so you inflict pain? How does that instill common sense or logic?
punishment in violence teaches the child humility, respect for authority, caution, and respect for their elders.
Click to expand...
In what universe?

Punishment by violence teaches only obedience from fear.
those children we see in sitcoms that say "yes mommy" are far far far from the way real children are. they are nothing but fictional TV characters.
Click to expand...
True, but I don't see their bearing here.
if you raise children by letting them do anything they want without retaliation for misbehaving, they'll grow and be the same in the future.
Click to expand...
The superficial response is that when I think of people I know who fulfill that standard, they're generally annoying. It's only if they inherit control of large companies that they get any more dangerous than anyone else.

Children of violence learn to employ violence.

Much of what children are punished for is merely imitation of the parents.
when they're teens they'll say "fuck you bitch" to their parents, respect no curfews, smoke cigarettes ..."what are you gonna do about it, huH? i got Child Services on my side!"
Click to expand...
Well, see, that's the challenge.

How did they learn to behave that way?

We can't blame it all on peer pressure and television. As a parent, it is my duty to prepare my daughter to understand such issues and resist certain temptations.

Hell, if it gets that far to begin with, it already means I've blown it.

Anecdotally, it's rather grimly humorous. Every once in a while, my mother gains a new understanding of me when the whole family gets together and someone refers to some odd occasion in the past and she says, "That never happened." Typically, it's my dad that says, "Actually it did." Over the last several years my mother has gained more of an understanding of my behavior over time; she literally didn't know that things expressed as, "Your mother and I think ...," were being said.

She has long worried that my brother and I are becoming like my father, who spent most of his years sealed off from the world inside himself. Only recently has the situation resolved in such a manner that she can see why those alarming characteristics seem present.

We didn't learn it from television. We didn't learn it in school. We're both unyielding in a certain way, and we learned it from our father.

I'll let you know how soon my daughter picks up her mother's and my dirty mouths. We're pretty good when we're talking to her, but when we're talking to each other ....
 
but they can. and they often do. only, you're probably going to win the fight, if it does turn to a fight.
Click to expand...

Maybe fight wasn't the right word. They have no reasonably effective means to defend themselves.

* the crazy assumption is that since the adult is the mature/experienced/wise/logical one, and the child is the young/inexperienced/foolish/illogical one (in one word - childish) -- at least when compared to eachother -- the adult will be right more often than the child.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at population statistics lately? Plenty of adults are foolish and illogical. :D

Seriously, if the idea is that the adult is more mature, experienced, wise or logical, why would you choose a form of discipline that is in no way related to maturity, experience, wisdom, or logic?

The point was that in more civil forms of discipline the child has the opportunity to justify their actions. In a situation where the adult's authority is based entirely on physical strength, the child is denied this opportunity. And I have seen plenty of parents hit their children for what seemed to me as an objective observer to be trivial reasons.

* plenty of recourse available. one of them? change your behaviour patterns.
Click to expand...

That was why I said "if the adult is wrong." People make misjudgments when they are upset. And plenty of parents, myself included, get upset at their kids. And if I go off on my kid out of anger, I want them to be able to say "fuck off" (preferably not in those words ;) ) before I do something I'll regret.

now if it's a damn serious beating, tell Child Services.
Click to expand...

And how many 5-year-olds know they can do that? Not many. And that's the problem with teaching children unquestioning submission to force. It gives the abusive parent (or teacher or coach or, in the later years, spouse) absolute control over a submissive victim. Teaching children unconditional submission makes them easy targets.
 
Spanking is abuse. Spank = hit. I wouldn’t take away the kids the first time, but I’d at least force the parent to attend anger management classes. Hopefully this will be the case within a few decades. It’s interesting that parents don’t hit their kids when they’re babies or when they’re big enough to fight back; just in-between.

I’d rather cut off my hand than hit my kids. They are exceptionally well-behaved, perhaps in part because they respect me and have no need to act out the disrespect and distrust I would deserve if I hit them. A good parent can effectively discipline without resorting to violence. Parents who hit are bad parents, creating future bad parents.

The best way to discipline a child is preventative, by showering them with love in all its forms, for which you are paid back tenfold. Any remaining need for discipline can be handled by threats of or actual loss of privileges. The brats I see are typically accompanied by parents who apparently long ago relinquished their authority; the kids have the upper hand. When my kids misbehave, they immediately experience the threat of a consequence, such as us leaving whatever fun place we’re at. If they don't respond then the consequence is always carried out. Unsurprisingly they rarely misbehave and when they do, the threat usually brings them in line.
 
Just a random thought, but the problem I have with 'spanking' is that a parent usually hits their child out of frustration or anger, NOT discipline.
 
I find the demarcation to be a bit hazy. Certainly I do not agree with physical punishment that causes injury or in striking a child purely out of anger or frustration, however, one is quite simply required to use brute force/violence in rearing a child. The question is one of degree.

Let's use the hot stove example: One would not stop to reason with a child who was about to pull a pot of boiling water down on its head, we use overwhelming physical force to haul the child out of harms way. Reason is applied later in explaining to the child why they should not pull pots off the stove. Yet if the child persists, how does one make this danger clear? Do we allow the child to learn through experience, do we rely upon our own diligence hoping that we will always be present when the child approaches the stove, or do we employ some manner of physical or emotional violence in order to instill a degree of fear of the situation?

In the final examination the key component seems to be consistency rather than the methods employed. While I am admittedly not a child behaviorist I have a rather extensive experience with the children of family and friends. In families where the rules and discipline were applied consistently the children have grown up well adjusted and well behaved. In families where the rules or discipline were applied arbitrarily or where the children we're allowed to unreasonably 'renegotiate' the terms (through various frustration tactics generally) the children have grown up to be inconsistent and ill-behaved.

The most successful, IMO, have been those families that applied discipline in a judicious and reasonable escalation. One does not haul off and whack a child for reaching for the cookie bowl but a spanking may be in order if/when the child will not stop reaching for the stove.

The goal is the establishment of authority that is not lightly or unreasonably challenged. Where the rules and discipline and applied judiciously and reasonably and the only renegotiation occurs in a reasoned manner. This requires a measure of violence the severity of which seems to be dependant upon the child and the situation. But to state absolutely that physical punishment is 'good' or 'bad' seems naive to me.

~Raithere
 
One does not haul off and whack a child for reaching for the cookie bowl but a spanking may be in order if/when the child will not stop reaching for the stove.
Click to expand...

Lots of other viable techniques may be applied instead. Hitting is unnecessary.
 
For the Fetus

WellCooked

Referring to the topic to which you referred us, I wanted to run something by you.
I personally have seen the result of "New age" parenting in which you should never hit your child, and the result are not pretty!
Click to expand...
A friend of mine who works in child care and education holds the theory that telling a child they are "special" is a crime. The argument essentially goes much like arguments about the Universe: "There's six-billion of us on the planet, and none of us are inherently any more important than any other." Kind of like that bit about what does anything really matter vis-a-vis the Universe.

The counterpoint here is a family that is very close to me. My longest friends are in this family. I trust them with my life and sanity more than I trust anyone in my own family.

The children weren't spanked, but all four are deeply shaken by family trauma. All four do better than I understand.

One is a PhD whose child-rearing methods aren't necessarily new-age, but the are definitively off the traditional American path. One is a RN who I don't know much about these days; she doesn't speak to the family except by necessity. One is a grad student who prefers to teach in poor communities that need teachers. One is an international student traveling and studying the Spanish-speaking world. They're all very well-adjusted in dealing outside the family.

The difference is that they've been "humbled," which is something spanking seeks to accomplish.

My parents don't wonder when I turn to them and denounce certain things I was taught as false. When I use the word "lies," they know damn well what I mean because they were conned too. But they staked some principles on physical violence--not many, I admit. But among those were some principles that even they now realize were wrong. Abandoning conditioning at the stake of physical violence is a tough measure.

I remember one time my mother took a whack at me for making a mess in the kitchen. It was a simple error--not having worked with chocolate in a solid form, I didn't break the block up before trying to melt it. It exploded, got milk and chocolate all over the place. And my mother walks into the house as I'm actually cleaning it up and throws a fit. The principles that day:

- Why didn't I clean the mess up? Um, Mother? I was in the middle of that when you hauled me out of the kitchen. Maybe you didn't notice the garbage can on the floor next to me with the used paper towels, the towel in the sink that I'd already rinsed out before deciding on paper towels.

- I could have hurt myself? Yeah, even I can see that. But I didn't. So what's this, just gotta make sure I do feel some pain today?

- You're so disappointed because you were just telling one of your friends about how you never have problems like this? Now, first off, you're talking about someone whose kid was using the range to light firecrackers in the house and set the kitchen on fire somehow. Secondly ... you mean you just hit me for reasons of pride?

To the other, of all the days we've talked about in retrospect, my mother and I have never talked about that one. But we've talked about enough that it's not like I hold issues; she sometimes mentions that spanking us was a mistake. She still talks about how glad she was we never wrecked the kitchen or set the house on fire. (She is, of course, forgetting the one occasion that I did actually set the house on fire, but if I want to be superficial about it, fine. We're even on at least one count, then ....)

Back to the idea of "special" children. And remember, by "special," I don't mean "retarded."

In addition to nonviolence, the so-called "new-age" parents often convince their child that there is something nearly divine about how special they are. By the time the child grows up, this sense of individuality is well-ensconced as a personal property that is jealously protected as all humans jealously protect certain things so precious to them.

It doesn't take violence to humble the human spirit unless one builds enough walls around the child that one must crash through them to reach the child.

Over the holiday, my daughter has become extremely mobile, and here at my mother's house, things aren't entirely babyproofed. Nonetheless, Emma Grace has been remarkably accommodating. She is responding appropriately to the word, "No," except for the television. And here's the deal . . . at home, in Bothell, the television is out of her reach. I don't have to worry about her playing with the controls.

And we had an incident shortly after we arrived in which my daughter was trying desperately to play with electrical parts of the television that could hurt her. Instead of spanking her, we just went over the area and moved the wires further back behind the unit, and re-stacked the stuff in the corner she was trying to reach through. She is supposed to be curious; it's my job to make sure that curiosity doesn't kill her. Now, of course, in an ideal world in which both of us work only so we can fall further behind on child-care costs, perhaps I would feel differently about it, but in the meantime, if my daughter is so important to me as I dare to claim, then I have the time to find a better way to communicate certain important principles.

For instance, I finally have to break out the books and brush up on two common psychological concepts; I haven't visited them in years. But essentially I have to read up on "interval and response" (or "interval and reward," which tends toward positive-reinforcement whereas "response" maintains an air of neutrality), and also Piaget's bit about "accommodation and assimilation" of information. I have my own understanding of them much like I have my own understanding of, say, what Christ said. But somehow I've managed to spend more time worrying about the prophets than Piaget, who, I'm told, renounced much of his own work for reasons that I've never been able to figure out. I'll have to do some googling for that, too.

Two cents, or something like that .....
 
but a spanking may be in order if/when the child will not stop reaching for the stove.
Click to expand...
It's not the child's fault that they don't know that a hot stove is dangerous. Therefore, why should they be punished for it?

Just pull them away and tell them not to touch the damn stove, because its hot.
 
Originally posted by mountainhare
It's not the child's fault that they don't know that a hot stove is dangerous. Therefore, why should they be punished for it?
Click to expand...
I thought I had explained that. In this case it's not about punishment; it's about asserting authority and teaching them that a particular action is bad / dangerous without them having to experience it themselves.

Just pull them away and tell them not to touch the damn stove, because its hot.
Click to expand...
You haven't spent much time with a three-year-old, have you? Explanations do not always work.

~Raithere
 
Trissa:

If you read through my thread I make clear that my belief is not a generalization fallacy. I state repeatedly that some children can be raise without spankings and raised well. My argument is not on non-spanking parenting but on the false belief of a universal means of parenting. The premise being that some children would be far better off if spanked and that parenting should not be set by generalized beliefs but should be modified and specialized to each specific child, I stated proof of a failure in parenting due to restricting to generalized ideals of parenting and limiting ones options because of it. I also brought up evidence of children who were not spanked and are nicely behaved anyway: Spanking was not needed in that case, again evidence validating my argument and proof that my argument is not as you have assumed it to be.

Also
"We are all special… just like everyone else" :D

I also brought up the issue of the new controversy over the effect of to much self-esteem and its connection to narcissism.

Also personally I don't believe it right to shield your children from the truth. If she wants to play with electronics let her, just let her remember the hard why to make sure everything is not powered or holds a charge, give here a plugged in lamp post to start with don't worry the voltage won't kill her by far just freak her out and give her a new a self learned respect for electricity. :D
 
There is no "one" right way to discipline children. There are ways that work well but which one we choose should take into consideration our child's personality, our personality and the given circumstances. What are we as parents to do?

It's always a good idea to educate/re-educate ourselves on childhood behaviors so that we know what to expect and what not to expect from them given their ages. It's always best to lay on more attention when they are behaving appropriately and less when they misbehave. Catch them being "good" and lay on the praise. Give our children enough positive attention and there won't be much need for them to try and attract our attention by misbehaving. We should avoid reacting strongly when they do misbehave, because that is probably why they were misbehaving in the first place - to get our attention, even if it's negative. Let the punishment fit the crime and follow through with the penalty phase immediately. Keep it short, appropriate and manageable. Forgive and forget and let life return to normal. If we're going to make fusses as parents, we should try making them over our children's good and decent behavior, not their transgressions.
 
Oh, yeah, the spanking part and the toddler. Here's an excerpt from the ever popular "What to Expect, the Toddler Years":

Some experts (and parents) believe that a smack on the hand or the bottom may be warranted in a dangerous situation to get an important message across to a child too young to understand words. For example, when a young toddler wanders into the street or continues to approach a hot stove following a stern warning to stay away. The idea is not to inflict pain, but to quickly call a child's attention to the seriousness of the situation. Such a slap should be followed by an explanation: "If you run into the street, a car could hurt you." Once a child shows that he or she understands what you say, however, physical force is no longer considered justifiable even when safety is an issue.
 
Good posts! I think spanking never fits the crime or situation. When my son wandered into the street, I picked him up and talked to him sternly to call his attention to the seriousness of the situation. A spanking would only have confused him and made him distrust and fear me, understandably. He’d have focused on the spanking more than the lesson.

For those who disagree, why take the risk that spanking might do long-term psychological damage to the child (to me, that would be as simple as them spanking their kids without first trying other methods--look at how many adults justify spanking with the non-reason that “I was spanked”) and use one of the many other non-violent yet effective forms of punishment? The most effective “punishment” I’ve found is the immediate withholding of reward, like a time-out, along with an explanation sans anger for why. That’s assuming you praise the good behavior as Eddie says and otherwise love them to pieces.
 
In my personal opinion, there is never a reason to hit a child any more than a quick slap on the hand to get their attention.

Spanking does not teach a child what is right and wrong, it simply teaches a child:
To equate violence with power.
To see violence as a means of showing your disappointment or disagreement.
To get angry and act out.
To do things when the parent isn't looking.
And most importantly...
To fear the spanking parent.

If you have to resort to the pathetic tactic of causing fear in your child in order to get attention, you are not equipped to be a parent.
People equate fear with respect.
If you have respect, you don't need to use fear.

On the other hand, those parents that coddle and baby their child and show no form of dicipline make me sick.

Dicipline your child by all means.
But why do it with a show of physical force?

As for the government:
They should have no say in whether a parent spanks a child unless it becomes a pattern of continuous abuse or causes physical injury to the child.
 
zanket,

What if other forms of punishment fail to work, what if the child does not listen to you? Both cases I have documented to happen on the link I posted.

I have nothing against spankings, sure it is violent and brutal, but if reasoning with a child and implementing other more benign forms of punishment and behavior modification fail that physically induced pain is by all means the next available option. Not disciplining a child will cause well document physiological problems like narcissism unlike spanking which I have yet see any evidence or poof that mild spanking cause any psychological problems. Please feel free to argue against me.
 
Last edited:
That’s a long thread. Maybe you can point out the cases you mention?

Some kids are more obstinate than others of course. I may have gotten lucky but I think it’s more a result of never letting them get away with anything. If kids can figure out some of your buttons to push then it’s really hard to untrain them. Better that the buttons never work.

I used to babysit a lot and often the kids were spoiled and wouldn’t mind at first. One kid about age 3 insisted on getting pop out of the fridge. He already knew he wasn’t allowed to have any, parents’ orders. I let him get the pop out and just before he got it to his lips I’d take it away and remind him he wasn’t to have pop. We did this for about an hour, over and over. He eventually gave up and it wasn’t an issue after that for all the times I babysat him. Eventually he did everything I told him to do without complaint. We also had lots of fun together.

I can’t imagine such simple methods failing on any kid under your control. They aren’t stupid; if the best they can get is what you allow then they’ll mind. Take kids bickering in the car, for example. I can’t imagine that being an issue for me. If they bicker after I tell them to stop then I’ll turn around and go home. Bickering on the way to Disneyland? Sorry kids, trip’s cancelled, you blew it. Fighting over a toy? Sorry kids, toy’s gone. Likely it never gets to that because they never got away with anything in the first place.
 
zanket,

search for "Ryan" on that thread.

What if the child bickers violent by trying to hurt you or by destroying things? How do you teach the child not to do something with immediate consciences?
 
Well Cooked,

It's extremely difficult for most people to stay calm when a young child is in your face and provoking. Even adults who are normally considered calm, cool and collected have a hard time holding back when they've just been smashed in the face with a hard toy in the hands of a toddler. The urge to hit back can be overwhelming. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "feeling" that urge. It's a normal response. "Acting" on the urge causes problems.

It's very frightening for a young child to be hit, especially by an adult. Hitting back sets an example that you don't want them to follow. It teaches them that it's acceptable to deal with anger and frustration by hitting another person, the very thing that you are hitting them for. Hitting back can also escalate into more serious child abuse. The double standard can cause the child to become confused and they won't learn how to tame their aggression naturally.

Instead of hitting, we parents should try our best to teach our children how to use words instead of physical aggression in response to our frustration and anger. We can respond by saying, "We do not hit other people!" Make it clear, verbally, that it's unacceptable to hit other people and that hurting another person is wrong. You might have to repeat this many, many, many different times in the beginning. As long as you lead by example and don't hit back, your child will eventually understand, accept and practice conflict resolution in a non-violent manner.

We can discourage aggressive behavior by avoiding extremes. The most aggressive children usually have either: Parents who discipline their children physically or parents who do not discipline their children at all. So, it's probably best to take a consistent and moderate approach to discipline and talk about it with our children.

It also helps to pay attention to and to praise good behavior. Aggressive behavior is often a call for attention by children who feel ignored and/or unappreciated when they are behaving appropriately.
 
WellCookedFetus - OK, I read about Ryan. Here’s a glaring problem:

my stepmother on the other hand can not spank Ryan, she tells warns him that it wrong and why he should not do it but when he repeats she try to put him in time out and he just walks away
Click to expand...

Uh, he just walks away and your stepmother lets him? Parenting rule #1: never let your kid get away with bad behavior. The best way to reinforce bad behavior is to let them wriggle out of a punishment. My kids cannot walk away from a time out. If I have to I’ll move the car seat into a bedroom and strap ‘em in. I check on them every few minutes until they agree to do what I told them to do. I’ve only had to do this twice.

It’s likely Ryan has gotten responses to tantrums. A tantrum must always be ignored, unless it’s in a public place bothering people in which case you move it out to the car or home and ignore it there. Tantrums quickly dissipate when they get no attention. If he’s prone to kicking and throwing things, she should strap him in the car seat in the house facing a wall where she can see him but he can't see her. Then she should go about her business until he tires himself out.

Some kids are much worse than others of course. But let’s see, does Ryan have any toys at all? If my kid hit his baby sister, he’d have no toys. Why should a kid who hits have a toy? They’d all be packed away. Or I might feed him the same healthy food for every meal, day after day after day, until he agreed to behave. The moment he faltered he’d pay the price all over again. He’d break eventually.

That being said, I’m no drill sergeant. My boy says “no” to me all the time. That’s natural and desirable. Saying “no” is not bad behavior per se. It depends on the circumstances. For example, if it’s just me & him and he says he doesn’t want to eat at the restaurant I chose, I’m not going to take him home just for that. Instead I might ask him where he does want to eat or I’ll offer another choice. He won't always get his way but he will sometimes. I earn his respect that way. Now if he’s at the McDonald’s play area and I told him five minutes ago that we were leaving soon and now I tell him let’s go we’re leaving and he says no, then after maybe thirty seconds' chance to change his mind I’m gonna crawl in the tube and yank him out of there and skip anything else fun planned for that day. He knows I'll do it so what does he do instead? I’ve seen other parents at McDonalds try to negotiate with their kids to get them out of the play area; unbelievable!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top