Do you/will you smack your child?

I have to agree with you 100% there. I have some young couions that are like that.

I agree with Ender here. I really don't like with parents bargain with their kids. They are the adults and they should not have to bargain with there child. If their child does something wrong then there should be no bargain.

 

I have a question. I noticed that most of those who are for spanking children are yourselves not yet parents. What experience do you have in believing corporal punishment works without a doubt? Were you yourself spanked as a child? Were you not, but believe you should have been?

What drives this notion that only physical violence will accomplish the desired lesson?
And since when has inflicting physical and psychological pain not been an element of physical abuse?

I also notice that none of you have answered the question posed by a few of us: What do you do when spanking no longer works?

 

I am for it because I have seen it work. Many times. It's really as simple as that. I know many people that have been disciplined that way as a child and they are completely well adjusted individuals.

I will attempt to answer your questions, but I will also rephrase your questions to you.
1) What drives the notion that physical violence (as you put it) will not accomplish the desired lesson?
2) How is the psychological game that others who don't spank play not considered abuse? You're now dealing with psychological issues instead of physical. It's just on another plane.
3) What do you do when taking away the child's things no longer works?

I ask these questions in return because it seems as though those who don't spank seem to think that their way is the perfect way. There are different ways to discipline children and they can all be effective if done right. And they all crumble if done wrong.

Now to the answers.

1) Spankings and the like provide an immediate physical response to bad behavior. It is the immediacy of the punishment that corrects the behavior. At least, it does in my experience.

2) Anything could be considered abuse, if you think about. Taking away toys? That psychological abuse. Denying them rights? Same thing. You can go overboard both in both manners of discipline. If it is used as a corrective tool and not something destructive, then I don't view it as abuse.

3) What happens? I can't honestly say because I've never gotten there. It never DIDN'T work with me and my brothers because my parents always made good on their threats. There will always be children to whom no discipline will ever get through. That's the nature of individuality.

 

I am a parent of a 2 & 1/2 year old boy and a newborn daughter (No, I don't spank my newborn. ). I was also raised with spanking as a form of discipline, and I turned out fine. I've tried the "time in the corner" method as well as the "smacking" method (as the term is used in this thread), and the latter has been extremely more effective. It is NOT abuse, it's just an effective form of discipline (big difference). I don't abuse my children with volence. If disciplining your children with spats is considered "violent abuse", I think that's comparable to saying, "time in the corner" can be considered a form of neglect, which is absurd.

 

I am for it because I have seen it work. Many times. It's really as simple as that. I know many people that have been disciplined that way as a child and they are completely well adjusted individuals.

Are you then basing your supporting data on immediate effect only? What of long term effects?

To answer your questions:

Q: What drives the notion that physical violence (as you put it) will not accomplish the desired lesson?
A: Nothing at all drives this notion. You misconstrue my case. My case has always been two-fold:
- corporal punishment has long-last effects and shapes future behavior;
- other forms of discipline will teach the same desired lesson without inflicting physical violence and without the long-term problems associated with corporal punishment.

Q: How is the psychological game that others who don't spank play not considered abuse? You're now dealing with psychological issues instead of physical. It's just on another plane.
A: Emotional and psychological abuse is sometimes just as harmful as physical abuse--with the exception that physical abuse in excess can kill or mame. I do not in any advocate emotional abuse.

As I said before, children understand the concept of immediate consequences to actions. If they do action A, action B will result. Action B needn't be violence to be effective to a child.

Q: What do you do when taking away the child's things no longer works?
A: Human behavior dictates that children will always have an interest in something. That something, whether it be football practice, video games, music, tv, phone, toys, etc, will always be leverage for a parent in terms of disciplinary action.

Parents should not deny basic elements to sustain health (food, water, sleep, etc). All the privileges, though, are just that.

By contrast, "smacking" as a discipline can only go so far before it causes irreperable harm to the child. Are you aware that the excuse used by parents/guardians in most cases of SBS-induced death (Shaken Baby Syndrome) was that they were disciplining their child?

In the studies I linked to yesterday, it was noted that (based on the interviewed mothers'own feedback) 99% of corporal punishment would not have occurred if the mother had taken a moment to cool down before disciplining the child. What does this suggest about how this form of punishment is dealt out?

I ask these questions in return because it seems as though those who don't spank seem to think that their way is the perfect way. There are different ways to discipline children and they can all be effective if done right. And they all crumble if done wrong.

There is no such thing as perfect. I hope I have not conveyed that message to you. There are different ways to discipline children, many of which do not involve physical violence, and all of which can work as effectively (each variation depending on the child's character).

And to your answers:

1) Spankings and the like provide an immediate physical response to bad behavior. It is the immediacy of the punishment that corrects the behavior. At least, it does in my experience.
It also teaches the child that if they want to get their point across and to get others to pay attention and do as they want, violent behavior is a viable option.

2) Anything could be considered abuse, if you think about. Taking away toys? That psychological abuse. Denying them rights? Same thing. You can go overboard both in both manners of discipline. If it is used as a corrective tool and not something destructive, then I don't view it as abuse.

Explain how taking away a toy to because of bad behavior is damaging to a child, psychologically? Tell me how spanking that same child is better than taking the toy away, psychologically.

3) Wha

 

The law considers striking your wife as physical abuse and assault. Why is it not true for your children?

Because you can't be the parent/guardian of your spouse, or at least I'd hope you couldn't be, hence it's not your place to "discipline" them, no matter how much they might need it (haha). Children need discipline, and in my experience thus far, it is the most effective means, as it was also with me when I was growing up. Would you rather the government tell parents how to raise and discipline their own children?

 

Spanking is okay in moderation.

However, there needs to be other components to your disipline if you do spank your

child. There needs to be trust(no excessive beatings), consistency, discussion

(explaining to them why they should/shouldnt do something), and most important

understanding (from the child truly understanding why the parent feels as they do

in whatever situation lead to spanking in the first place). As long as those things

are present in the relationship, spanking is okay, and I would bet you would need

to spank less anyway, which should be the main goal anyway (improved behavior).

 

Because you can't be the parent/guardian of your spouse, or at least I'd hope you couldn't be, hence it's not your place to "discipline" them, no matter how much they might need it (haha). Children need discipline, and in my experience thus far, it is the most effective means, as it was also with me when I was growing up. Would you rather the government tell parents how to raise and discipline their own children?

Laws against assault and bodily harm are not laws against discipline. They are laws against bodily harm. Why must discipline be physical violence? I would rather parent realize the inherent flaws in violence long-term. Please read the links I provided yesterday. I would like very much to discuss them you.

 

Why must discipline be physical violence?

No one has ever said discipline must be violent at all. However, a swat is an excellent deterrent to the temper tantrums my friends & relatives (who don't believe in slapping, spanking, and the like) allow their children to have.

 

As I said before, children understand the concept of immediate consequences to actions. If they do action A, action B will result. Action B needn't be violence to be effective to a child.

That is not ture for all children though. And I don't care what the heck the studys say because in the end they do not take into acount that children all think and act different. What works for one person will not work for another and so on.

Human behavior dictates that children will always have an interest in something. That something, whether it be football practice, video games, music, tv, phone, toys, etc, will always be leverage for a parent in terms of disciplinary action.

Yes but some children know that if they act good they will at one point get what was taken away from them back. So unless you are going to take it away from them until they are 18 and in collage or even out of the house that does not always work either.

By contrast, "smacking" as a discipline can only go so far before it causes irreperable harm to the child.

That's not ture for all children though. Like I said above children react in different ways to different things. The way you do things my work well for your child. But that does not mean it will work well for another child.

In the studies I linked to yesterday, it was noted that (based on the interviewed mothers'own feedback) 99% of corporal punishment would not have occurred if the mother had taken a moment to cool down before disciplining the child. What does this suggest about how this form of punishment is dealt out?

That just because there studies done on it does not mean that is the case for ever mother out there. The studies only take a set number of people and then use said people to represnt ever one. They then say this is how it works for ever one. Which is just not ture. If ever thing worked the same for ever human then we are not really humans at all we are nothing more then robots.

Laws against assault and bodily harm are not laws against discipline. They are laws against bodily harm. Why must discipline be physical violence? I would rather parent realize the inherent flaws in violence long-term. Please read the links I provided yesterday. I would like very much to discuss them you.

Cheveyou that's great that the way you do things work for your kid. But what about the kids that it does not work for? It's the same when a kid get's smacked by mom or dad. It may ever well work for that kid but not another.

You need more then one way to discipline a child becasue they are react in different ways.

 

I completely disagree with the idea that corporal punishment teaches children that violence is a useful tool in getting what you want. That is not my experience.

 

Nor mine.

 

Does anyone remember getting pummelled by their parents? Smack? You gotta be kidding me. If I got out of line, I got my ass KICKED by my parents, and I harbor no ill will today for it, so I think the kids of today's society should thank whoever they pray to every night that things arent the way the were 20 + years ago.

 

I resent being told I shouldn't discipline my kids the way I was disciplined. My method works, I think it's social engineering at it's worst to try to make me feel bad about my parenting methods.

 

I resent being told I shouldn't discipline my kids the way I was disciplined. My method works, I think it's social engineering at it's worst to try to make me feel bad about my parenting methods.

Am I making you feel bad by expressing my opinion and relating my experiences? That says something.

 

Use what you feel works. Like I said things work different for different people. We can never really all have the same kind of discipline. I don't caer what the studies say. Many of them are wrong becasue there are things that they don't take into acount at all. Such as children all being different and acting different and needing different kinds of discipline.

 

Cheveyo, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at those lefties in the education department etc that are trying to prevent corporal punishment of any type.

 

[Yoda]Hear you nothing that I say?[/Yoda]

I've told you; I was smacked, it worked, I don't know and may change my mind at the time, and it shouldn't be an and/or issue.

E_S

 

[Yoda]Hear you nothing that I say?[/Yoda]

I've told you; I was smacked, it worked, I don't know and may change my mind at the time, and it shouldn't be an and/or issue.

Actually, it is becoming more and more clear that people are not allowing this to be just my opinion. I did see what you wrote, as well as the posts of others. However, my opinion is still that violent discipline does have effects on character behavior later.

Not to mention the simple fact that the very notion of inflicting pain on a child wrenches my gut. I can't fathom that, especially when there are established alternatives that do work without adverse behavioral side-effects.

How do you teach a child that it is not okay to hit if you yourself are hitting them? Maybe that's the case. Maybe people aren't teaching that's not okay to hit? I don't know. My daughter knows that hitting is wrong.

Everyone is so quick to call the research fake or wrong, and so quick to say it doesn't work.

EDIT: And excuse me, but how in the world did this become a LIBERAL thing??

 

EDIT: And excuse me, but how in the world did this become a LIBERAL thing??

This is the Senate - sadly it was inevitable.

 

I got chewed up for adressing this very subject in another thread.

First things first though- I am not a parent. I do not expect my statements to be taken as such. I will admit though that I have helped many that have not had parents make it further than they could have without.

I was raised by a single mother of two, myself and a (younger)sister. For the most part we were good children. We never had much and we never asked for more than we could have. My father was there some of the time and even then, when he saw the need, would let us know when we were wrong. Not by beating, but by plain old admonishment. That was enough for the most part.

It was only when we stepped over the line that we got a whippin i.e. nearly killing ourselves or making a blatant mistake to simply test our limits. Im not saying that everyones the same; Nor am I saying that all parents should take the same initiative; Nor will I ever advocate the abuse of a child.

For someone to tell me that ones parenting skills are wong? The proof is in the puddin... as it were. If we are supposed to catch it ahead of time? Take a look at society as it is now...


IMO: Too late.

 

I resent being told I shouldn't discipline my kids the way I was disciplined.

If there are massive advances in a field of medicine between the time you were a child and the time you have children of your own, do you resent being told about them? You (and I) were raised in a more ignorant time, by people who didn't understand how unhealthy corporal punishment was. We've made progress since then, and I find it sad that you're so resistant to hearing about it.

I'm sure at some point someone objected when people started hearing that drilling holes in people's heads is actually harmful and won't let out evil spirits that cause insanity, but that didn't mean we had to let it continue because it was traditional.

My method works

Statistically speaking, no, it doesn't. Pretty much every bit of research done on the topic points to a strong correlation between corporal punishment and sharply increased rates of bad behavior, future criminality, etc.

I'm sorry, but you're abusing your children.

 

Statistically speaking, no, it doesn't.

Statistically speaking they can take all there research and thorw it out the window because it does not mean a thing.

Pretty much every bit of research done on the topic points to a strong correlation between corporal punishment and sharply increased rates of bad behavior, future criminality, etc.

A lot of that is a load of bull to. Children think and act in different ways and different kinds of punishment are need of them. Where a time out may work for one kid it will not work for another. Where corporal punishment works of Loopster may not work for another and so on. The stuides on child punishment are so flawed it is not even funny because many of them forget to take into acount that the children all act in different ways to punishment.

When the stuides start taking that into acount then maybe they will mean something. But until then they really mean nothing when it dose not take into acount many other things about children. One of them being they are not all robots that act the same why to corporal punishment or non corporal punishment.

 

Statistically speaking, no, it doesn't. Pretty much every bit of research done on the topic points to a strong correlation between corporal punishment and sharply increased rates of bad behavior, future criminality, etc.

If you're blind, go ahead and believe statistics. But those of us who are still sighted know differently.

"No spanking" became the buzz in the early 80's. By the late 80's schools started posting signs saying "No Weapons." By the 90's many schools had metal detectors. Now all the schools in the Phoenix area no longer offer lockers for grades 7-12 because kids are still managing to sneak weapons and drugs into school and keep them in their lockers.

As I said, I've never had to raise a hand to Rachael, not once. But she was the type to understand that my authority was not to be questioned. Alot of parents aren't that lucky.

 

She will respect your authoritah!

diz, no I'm not abusing my kids. I don't even yell at them because I have no need to.

You (and I) were raised in a more ignorant time, by people who didn't understand how unhealthy corporal punishment was. We've made progress since then, and I find it sad that you're so resistant to hearing about it.

I don't believe it is unhealthy. In fact I now quite a few kids that would benefit from it.

I'm sure at some point someone objected when people started hearing that drilling holes in people's heads is actually harmful and won't let out evil spirits that cause insanity, but that didn't mean we had to let it continue because it was traditional.

The difference is corporal punishment isn't harmful and it also works.