Do you/will you smack your child?

It is justifiable in your opinion. That is the point of this thread isn't it?, others disagree that it is justifiable or acceptable.

From the child's perspective smacking may indeed seem contradictory as they have no concept of what is socially or culturally justifiable, they simply see that the message the parent is giving seems to be that smacking is bad yet they are being smacked? Isn't that bad as well? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

I actually do both - smacking and other non corporal forms of punishment as that works best for me. Parenting is all about flexibility IMO - you do what works best for you.

 

When I have tried Everything else that I possibly could, and they still dont understand then what else am I to do?

Nothing. They're just not going to understand everything you want them to understand when you want them to understand it. Hell, it's very likely there will be a lot of things they will never see the same way you do.

Since you're going to great lenghts to ignore or chariactature what I've said, let me ask you something; your kid's in a supermarket, having the mother of all tantrums. She's pulling stuff off the shelves, screaminge etc. You try telling her if she keeps doing this, she'll miss out on X,Y and Z. She keeps going. What do you do? [More] Sternly tell lecture about causality?

One, she's a great deal more likely to throw tantrums like this if she's been spanked in the past than if she hadn't been. An ounce of prevention, and all that...

Two, you ignore her once she starts acting out. Kids are genetically programmed to seek attention from parents, because their lives depend on being able to do so. Kids throw tantrums because they know it gets a reaction from parents, and any reaction is better than no reaction. It's just like dealing with irate adults: if you stop escalating the situation immediately, it's like sucking oxygen out of a fire.

I though parents were in charge and thus kids did as they were told and not when it suited them, but when it suited you.

Nope. Parents serve the needs of children. If you don't want that job, don't have kids. It's an implicit moral contract you enter into when you decide to have a child. You facilitate their development, and ideally it's a child-driven process.

 

Oh PPOR, diz. That's your bloody opinion mate and I can tell you I never threw tantrums and I was spanked. Clearly,however, I'm on the verge of the mother of all wobblies if you and Chev are to be believed. We're talking a personal Hiroshima.

What utter bloody claptrap. Really. I was smacked, I never had tantrums. Dang.

Sorry, diz, I grew up respecting discipline. Which means "no" is something you have to get used to hearing, and not questioning until you hit adolescence then it's required. A parent has to be an absolute authority when the child's too young to understand the BS psychobabble, pseduo-philosophical reasoning you try to employ on them at age six.

E_S

 

Oh PPOR, diz.

Here's a link to a summary of a bunch of studies supporting a strong link between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior (as well as low IQ, depression, etc).

That's your bloody opinion mate and I can tell you I never threw tantrums and I was spanked. Clearly,however, I'm on the verge of the mother of all wobblies if you and Chev are to be believed. We're talking a personal Hiroshima. raised_brow

What utter bloody claptrap. Really. I was smacked, I never had tantrums. Dang.

This is akin to saying "Well, I know someone who has smoked for 40 years, and hasn't had any health problems from it, so clearly smoking is OK." No one's saying everyone who gets spanked becomes a thug, and everyone who doesn't becomes an angel. There's just a strong overlap, and which would indicate that it has solidly negative effects on child development. Clearly, anyone's childhood is going to have some positive aspects and some negative ones, and hopefully, the net effect is positive despite the presence of negative elements. You seem to have turned out OK, but statistically speaking, you're more the exception than the rule.

However, once you have pretty solid evidence that something is detrimental to child development, you kind of have to stop doing it if you want to be considered a competent parent.

Sorry, diz, I grew up respecting discipline. Which means "no" is something you have to get used to hearing, and not questioning until you hit adolescence then it's required.

I'm sorry, but I feel that that's barbaric.

A parent has to be an absolute authority when the child's too young to understand the BS psychobabble, pseduo-philosophical reasoning you try to employ on them at age six.

That doesn't appear to be true. There's a lot of evidence supporting approaches like attachment parenting and the TCS movement which also dovetail with most current child development theories.

 

Let's take a look at that evidence; critically, as has thus far not been the norm.

"Studies of mass murderers, "ordinary" murderers, rapists etc. generally show that they were victims as children of seriously abusive punishment during childhood."

Ah, so murders were seriously abused as children.

OK, People Who Were Smacked and Who Would Smack; who of you has murdered or raped? Honestly now... And who was "seriously abused".

(diz, Chev, I appreciate you may consider a whack on the bum serious abuse but let's not get too carried away now... )

I see a sea of no hands.

And the telling part, which I'm sure you either overlooked or hoped we would:

" serious abuse causes such extreme anti-social behavior, one might speculate that milder forms of childhood punishment might also negatively affect the children later in life."

I can speculate the moon's made of Haagen-Dazs icecream, too. It's fun to make spurios claims.

Truly, I'm worried abou what a lamentable generation we're going to see coming ahead of us. Already, most adolescents are out of control bastards, with little to no respect for anything. Instead of taking measures to ensure they can take their place in society, we cater to their needs and create a generation assuming the world owes it a compromise. Yep, it's all spankings fault. If a bunch of uptight liberal academics hadn't been spanked, a generation wouldn't have rebelled against it and produced these little hellions.

Damn my lazy parents! Why couldn't I be a mentally challenged murder-slash-rapist on death row. They smacked me, which is of course abuse and lazy parenting!



Has anyone got any real evidence? I thought not.

E_S

 

The real evidence is in the multitude of psychological research which has been done on this, but it's been continuously dismissed in this thread. You all seem quite certain that being spanked personally has made you experts on its effects, and now dissenting opinions are being called "utter bloody claptrap", so I'm not sure what more we can say.

 

What that be evidence disingenuously packaged in studies which examine for example violent criminals or which conclude that since 6.9% of surveyed smacked kids got depression, it's fine?

I speak not to disprove what Cheveyo spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.

And I know that nobody here who got smacked or smacks is a violent, depressed murderer.

Oh, and whilst we're on the subject, dear, of not bothering to read what people have posted; have you noticed most of the time I've not actually said the non-smacking approach is wrong but rather the claims it's lazy parenting etc are bunk? You mustn't confuse the fact I don't agree with you with me being diametrically opposed to your points.

Ask your good friend about what side I'm on in any debate; if he's as clever a chap as I suspect he is he'll say, "his own side".

E_S

 

None of the studies that many of you against corporal punishment have linked applies to my family. Again this is personal anecdote, but my entire family was raised in the traditionalist style of discipline of corporal punishment. They were not abused, they were physically disciplined. And they?re all stable, well educated, and successful. So are all my cousins, aunts, and uncles the exception to this rule? Seems hard to believe.

But I do have one 4 year old cousin who was at first disciplined with time-outs and the removal of privileges. In preschool he got in trouble for hitting other students, and he also sometimes hit his mom. So if he wasn?t spanked at all, where did he learn this aggression from? His parents learned quickly that more firm punishment was needed.

Although the evidence from the experts and psychologists is compelling, I can?t help what I see from personal experience.

I agree with diz that the parent-child relationship is ultimately for the child?s benefit, but it is also in the child?s best interest to respect the authority of the parent.

EDITED FOR REDUNDANCY AS WELL AS SAYING THE SAME THING WITH DIFFERENT WORDS

 

E_S: So really, you have to wait until your daughter is ready to hear your terms of punishment? I though parents were in charge and thus kids did as they were told and not when it suited them, but when it suited you.

I do not have to wait. I choose to wait, so that I can be a more effective parent. I could--like many other parents--just yell back at her, scream back, hit. Instead, I impress upon her that her tantrum will cause no reaction on my part, and will essentially separate her from the rest of the world. Basically, it has taught her that she can scream and yell all she wants, but it is not just unproductive, but counter-productive, because it ultimately denies her any chance of getting what she wants.

What she wants.

To a child, the world revolves around what he or she wants. It's a far more valuable lesson to consistently teach that misbehavior and poor judgement causes one to lose what they want than it is to teach that misbehavior and poor judgement results in a beating.

The really bizarre thing is, were I to listen to you folks here, I would think that my daughter would be consistently ill-behaved and spoiled, in so much as she always throws a tantrum to get her way. What's bizarre is that this doesn't describe my daughter's behavior. how in the world can that be?

But hey, I probably could have gotten her to stop crying and screaming faster if I'd just swatted her a few times, huh? Oh wait, hitting usually results in crying and screaming. How would that have solved the issue better? Enlighten me.

I suppose you would think removing my daughter from the situation and disciplining her as noted above is lack of parental control, whereas hitting her would be taking charge. Let me ask you this, given that just a mention of a repeat punishment she experienced after the Target incident is now enough to stifle an oncoming tantrum, can you tell me how our discipline is ineffective?

Maybe you'd better define "in charge" for me, because the way I'm interpreting it from your post is bringing about a negative connotation.

Vez: Over time the paddle was eventually taken down because some nutball parent out there didn't want their kid spanked or even threatened with a spank.

Nutball? I would fight to do the death (ironically enough) anyone who intended to inflict physical harm upon my daughter, regardless of intent. That must be a nutball concept to you.

It means that I am actually BEING a parent, IMO.

I see. So, by disciplining my daughter in a non-violent way, I'm not a parent. I suppose that would be your equivalent of me saying parents who spank are being lazy. So be it, I'm sure I deserved that. Of course, since you don't have kids, and I do... I think I may have more personal experience to draw on at the moment, so I'll take your comment for what it's worth.

Cyprusg: Most definitely it's an appropriate punishment, there is no contradiction, one is justifiable (culturally, socially, and otherwise) and the other is not.

This explanation gets tripped up by the argument that children can't comprehend complex circumstances that would determine consequences. As E_S says, for children, everything must be black and white. Doesn't it?

LoH: you do what works best for you.

What's best for you, or what's best for your child's development? I will agree, spanking is great for the parent at that moment.

Two, you ignore her once she starts acting out. Kids are genetically programmed to seek attention from parents, because their lives depend on being able to do so. Kids throw tantrums because they know it gets a reaction from parents, and any reaction is better than no reaction. It's just like dealing with irate adults: if you stop escalating the situation immediately, it's like sucking oxygen out of a fire.

Thank you, I'm glad to hear my wife and

 

I agree with you, Chev, that if a child is throwing a temper tantrum, spanking will only escalate. In that situation, ignoring them is best.

But if a child is going buck wild and being disrespectful, then proper application of corporal punishment is needed, IMO. This would not be the first reaction, but the method to use after a stern verbal warning.

Again, I don?t think any of us are trying to change each other?s parenting techniques. You know what?s best for your child. But like gun control and abortion, both sides feel strongly that their way is the right way.

 

But if a child is going buck wild and being disrespectful, then proper application of corporal punishment is needed, IMO. This would not be the first reaction, but the method to use after a stern verbal warning.

hey, if a cattle prod works for cattle...

 

Oh, c?mon Chev, there?s a big difference between a spank on the bum and electric shock. Another example again from personal experience: my wife and my brother in law were disciplined by their mother and grandfather. They were whacked with slippers, belts, and pulled by the ear. I wouldn?t use the last method, but again, no adverse affects.

So what I?m trying to illustrate is there is something to say for both methods. You know what?s best for your daughter, and other parents no what?s best for theirs. There is a fine line between discipline and abuse, and it is most definitely a grey area, not a black and white issue.

 

example again from personal experience:

I thought at first you were going to tell me you were cattle-prodded.

Yeah, electrocution isn't the same as a spanking. I wonder if my daughter would react more to a stungun or a wooden paddle. Maybe I could just shoot her in the flank with a paintgun. That'll sure learn her not to do whatever it is she's doing.

Oh right, spanking in moderation. As long as I only beat her on the gluteus, then it's just a spanking. I have such poor aim, though. I could accidentally hit her back or thigh. Is that abuse then? Oh no, wait. My intent was to discipline, so that's not abuse.

Right. I remember now.

 

I've been lurking in this thread now for days biting my tounge and silently cheering E_S. It looks like he's is in here fighting the good fight by himself.
I can keep silent no longer - some of these things are just killing me.


Lost: From the child's perspective smacking may indeed seem contradictory as they have no concept of what is socially or culturally justifiable, they simply see that the message the parent is giving seems to be that smacking is bad yet they are being smacked? Isn't that bad as well? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Part of being a child is learning that life is filled with double standards. The sooner you figure that out, the easier you'll be able to get along.


Diz: Nope. Parents serve the needs of children. If you don't want that job, don't have kids. It's an implicit moral contract you enter into when you decide to have a child. You facilitate their development, and ideally it's a child-driven process.

Chev: But hey, I probably could have gotten her to stop crying and screaming faster if I'd just swatted her a few times, huh? Oh wait, hitting usually results in crying and screaming. How would that have solved the issue better? Enlighten me.
...
Maybe you'd better define "in charge" for me, because the way I'm interpreting it from your post is bringing about a negative connotation.

I think these are at the core of why I disagree with you people.
Children are not little adults and should not be treated as such.
They are your untamed id, running around your house.
Throughout history - from religion to government - the lessons we learn the quickest are the lessons that are attatched to a memory of pain.
This business of relying solely on positive/negative reinforcement and discussion just all sounds like overly-PC-hippie-rhetoric-BS to me. (whoa. try saying that 10 times fast.)



My wife has recently begun babysitting one day a week for a friend of hers. This lady's kids come to my house. This mother's parenting style is definately along the lines of what Lost, Diz and Chev are preaching.
These children are absolutely intolerable. They lie and destroy things with absolute impunity and surprisingly are both violent.
Not surprisingly, we're these kids' third new babysiter this year. Their other sitters refused to watch them anymore.
For three weeks in a row, when the mother dropped off her kids, as soon as she walked out the door, her oldest son (6yrs) would punch my son (6yrs) in the face. Not a slap - a closed fist punch, resulting in bleeding, fat lips, etc. This would result from my son playing with a toy this child wanted to play with or something similar.

The first time this happened I said to myself, "This is not my child, I don't want to go to jail" - so, no spanking - but a "time-out" in the corner.
I spoke to this mother about it, and of course "N has never done anything like that before!". She pulled her son aside and talked to him calmly and rationally that we don't hit other people. It's wrong and "it's really bad for your karma, honey. Go give E a hug and say you're sorry." <---(actual quote)

The second time this kid hit mine I gave him another "time out", calmly spoke to him myself and reminded him sternly that hitting is bad and we don't hit other people, etc. When his mother picked him up he got another karma lecture and my kid got another hug.

The third time it happened I could no longer take the fact that I was not allowed to discipline this child - I sent my son back to his room with my full permission to punch this kid back in the face as hard as he wanted.
He did.
Now this kid hasn't hit anyone in 2 weeks and he's a completely different (well-behaved) person when he's at our house.

I'm prepared for the responses that are going to accuse me of being barbaric or abusive.
I prefer to think of it as learning by "action/reaction".

My questions are: Where does a child who is raised in an environment of non-violent, positive reinforcement learn this violent behavior?
Why did being "hit back" succeed whe

 

Chev, nobody's telling you to discipline your daughter any differently. It's working for you and her, and that's great. I'm just saying that corporal punishment worked just fine for me and just about everyone that I know.

 

I know that no one is telling me to, but you all are telling me taht it works better AND saves time. I'd be a fool not to!

 

I agree.

 

Well, I know I'm not telling you to discipline your daughter any differently. You are her father, and you are raising her the way you think is best. More power to ya.

 

It depends. If the child is going to touch a hot stove, I might smack the little kid's hand. But you got to keep their minds occupied, otherwise they'll get into too much. I'd probably end up spoiling my children, then bribe them with star wars toys.

 

I think the stove analogy should be banned from existence.

That is all.

However, I would like to add in again that research has clearly indicated the problems with corporal punishment on a large scale. Individual anecdotes for or against it are no more useful in proving anything than they are for any other issue. One should turn to responsible studies done by responsible, knowledgable people.

If the studies indicated the opposite of what they do, I'm sure you would be citing them with great delight.

 

Phsycological studies have way too many variables to impress me to change my opinion on corporal punishment.

 

When I was in serious trouble then my mom would call my dad in and I got a wopping, and you know what my parents parenting worked! I only got smacked a few times and I learned respect. I mean people who beat their children are not good parents but I believe every kid needs smacked every once in a great while. And sure Ill probably smack my kid a few times.

 

I think the main thing with me was all the rules were laid out in advance, so I knew what punishment my actions would warrent. Kinda like society....

 

If the studies indicated the opposite of what they do, I'm sure you would be citing them with great delight.

Possibly. But then we'd see the opposite of what we're seeing now: Those who oppose corporal punishment would be citing their experiences as a justification and those in favor would cite the studies as religiously as those against do now.


Personally, I know what works in my life. I've seen too much to relinquish my decision making to the so-called experts who purportedly know better than me.

Individual anecdotes for or against it are no more useful in proving anything than they are for any other issue. One should turn to responsible studies done by responsible, knowledgable people.

Sp should I turn to studies that are done to disprove my religion because they are done by learned men and throw away all my personal experience? Studies are a nice resource, but they shouldn't dictate everything I do in my life.

 

Sp should I turn to studies that are done to disprove my religion because they are done by learned men and throw away all my personal experience?

It's impossible to scientifically study God or many aspects of faith and religion (though many are able to be studied, like prayer), so that seems nonsensical or irrelevant to me.