Do you/will you smack your child?

I was spanked and I believe it made me who I am.

I was also beaten by my step mother so I do know the difference between a spanking and a beating.
But I still believe spanking was what made me behave.
My father tried to reason with me and it just didn't work.
I cannot explain why, I just know I remember it not working.
Spankings did.
But as I said I believe it all depends on the child.
Again, I am not planning on spanking my child unless other routes have failed.
I am saying I will not rule it out.

But people who will not spank their child are cutting out a possible solution if their reasoning and all else fails.

 

You can raise you kids as you wish, obviously; but you cannot get surprised when you suggest many users (and their parents), are bad, lazy parents for smacking. Sorry mate, you forfeited that right.

I want to take a minute and defend my assertion that spanking is lazy parenting.
I still stand by it, yes. (I never called them "bad parents", E_S, though I do say they use bad methods--big difference.)

Spanking, beating, smacking, etc, is lazy because it is a fast, immediate discipline. A child acts up, whack, wag the finger, sharp words. story over. Actual lesson learning takes a little longer than that. And it involves much more to instill a proper level of understanding in the child.

Of all those in favor of corporal punishmen tin this thread, I've not heard them say they tried non-violent alternatives first, or that they would try non-violent alt's first when/if they have children. They say they will smack their children. One even voiced his repulsion at the idea that someone dare show him a different way to discipline.

It is lazy. It is a refusal to take the time required to properly and effectively teach lessons and discipline to children in non-violent ways.

 

Chev, I deal with monster kids now - 42 of them. I can't communicate in English or Chinese, the moral issues behind their bastardry. They're kids. I can't stress that enough. It needs to be do as I say, not as I do until such a time they have a moral code implanted. Most kids don't get smacked beyond, say, 8 years old. Why?

E_S

 

New father of twin girls, and I've been doing a lot of study, thinking, and prayer on how to approach bringing up my girls.

Spanking, if done properly, is only needed during the formative years of a child's life. That is, to the point in time where other stimuli (guilt, embarrasment, reason, etc) outweigh the pain stimulus. The fact is, you cannot reason with a two-year-old, neither can you shame him by telling him he did something wrong. Any response you get from these approaches at such a young age is superficial and does nothing to mold the attitude of the child (which is what you are seeking to do). However, that is not to say that the pain stimulus does not need to be accompanied by explaination. It does. But it is the pain that gives meaning to "no" in those early years.

I know of very few people who "spank" properly. (I personally will try to avoid using my hands as instruments of punishment. I would much rather prefer them to be instruments of comfort. But my children will know to fear me - in the godly way - when they see a switch.) Discipline can never be done out of anger. Otherwise it is truly abuse. Discipline must be consistent, else the child will be lost and confused by shifting boundaries. And discipline must be decisive. A child is allowed ignorance as an excuse only once, thereafter each offense is met with a spanking, no warnings.

If done correctly, by the time that a child reaches the age where their conscience kicks in, you've done your job in molding it to know right and wrong and that right = praise and wrong = pain. If done correctly, they would also know that you love them. Perhaps that's why many look derisively at spanking. Most simply are not doing it right.

I might also add that I truly believe in "spare the rod, hate the child". Corporal punishment is necessary for the proper and ideal development of a child. Notice I didn't say successful development. A child can overcome early setbacks and succeed without spanking, but it is not ideal and IMO selfish on the part of the parent. Likewise, I think many spanked kids (myself included) overcame the setback of being spanked inconsistently and out of anger.

As an aside, here's a great book for those interested in training up children this way.

 

Of all those in favor of corporal punishmen tin this thread, I've not heard them say they tried non-violent alternatives first, or that they would try non-violent alt's first when/if they have children.

Did I not say that very thing? I've never hit my little girl. I've not found it nesicarry.

 

r8hitman

(I know some of you answered this but I just thought I'd give my opinion anyway. )

 

My eyes! My eyes!

 

Chev, sorry, but I'd argue that evidence to hte contrary has been at least implicit throughout the discussion. For instance, most of those in favor of corporal punishment in this thread have commented how it was only used "2 or 3 times" during the child's life, or how it "never really happened after [insert age]."

We can draw quite a few things from this. I think its safe to assume that the child disobeyed more than twice in their entire life. Yet, people are only talking about two to three spankings. Obviously, then, non-violent methods of discipline were used the vast majority of the time. Similarly, I'm assuming that most children continued to disobey after spanking discontinued. Why, then, did it discontinue? Again, because non-violent methods had primacy. I can't seriously believe you interpreted their comments as meaning that no minor between the ages of 8-18 ever disobeyed their parents even once.

So then, I would again have to say that no one is talking about spanking as the first or only resort. And no one denies the usefulness of methods outside of corporal punishment. However, leaving that option on the table as a last resort is not the same thing as exclusively endorsing it, and condemning all others.

Yes, there's been a lot of talk about the usefulness of spanking and its positive application. But that's a natural result of the conversation being driven by claims of the inherent ineffectiveness and cruelty of corporal punishment. No other response (save agreeing with your assessment) would make for coherent discussion. You shouldn't read that as being the sole method of punishment advocated, any more than it would be reasonable to believe that "all atheists do is try to get rid of the 10 Commandments."

 

Because the risk is smaller that they turn back on you? Because it's not as easy to smack a, say, 15 year-old? And because it's less work than explaining to a child at that age what it did wrong?

And to those who absolutely think they have to instill fear in their children: why? What does it give you to know that they fear you? As a parent, I'd like to be loved, but not feared.

And what happened to giving children the chance to learn from their own mistakes? Why not let them develop the ability to decide what's right and wrong over time, by themselves? I guess that will help them more in the long run - when they move out and live on their own, there will be no one to smack them for mistakes. Won't those children be the ones without guidance?

 

I'm beginning to think that Cheveyo is the only sane person here! How can anyone in good faith strike a child? I've worked with many children over the years and if I had ever seen someone raise a hand to a child, you can be sure I would have called the cops.

 

In a lot of cases, it comes down to a matter of degree, not absolutes.

For example, there are people who claim that feeding your children too much junk food is abusive. However, does that mean that occasionally giving them a treat is also abuse? Not at all.

I agree, if a parent were hitting their child on a regular basis, doing it out of anger, and/or hitting excessively hard, it would be abuse and the police should be called.

However, would it be appropriate for a parent to lightly slap their child's hand if they were reaching for a cookie jar? How about a hot stove? Technically, that is hitting a child as a form of punishment. Would you call the cops for that?

It is not a black-and-white issue. Spanking/smacking should never be used as the first response, nor should it be used by itself, but at the same time that doesn't mean that it should never be used.

Kimball Kinnison

 

However, would it be appropriate for a parent to lightly slap their child's hand if they were reaching for a cookie jar? How about a hot stove? Technically, that is hitting a child as a form of punishment. Would you call the cops for that?

It is not a black-and-white issue. Spanking/smacking should never be used as the first response, nor should it be used by itself, but at the same time that doesn't mean that it should never be used.

Thank you, Kimball. I am not saying that children should be beaten. There is a distinct difference between a beating and a spanking to me. But to say that you'd call the cops for something like a hit on the bottom or the like is utterly ridiculous.

And what happened to giving children the chance to learn from their own mistakes? Why not let them develop the ability to decide what's right and wrong over time, by themselves? I guess that will help them more in the long run - when they move out and live on their own, there will be no one to smack them for mistakes. Won't those children be the ones without guidance?

Letting children just learn on their own is where we get the brats of today. Children need boundaries and limitations put on them. If you let them just "learn from their own mistakes", they will run wild. THAT is lazy parenting.

 

Why not let them develop the ability to decide what's right and wrong over time, by themselves?

Please, whatever you do...Don't. Have. Children.

Our welfare roles are already too big and our correctional intitutions are too full.

 

I work out about 5-7 times a week. I'm 1.87m tall, I weigh in at 96kgs (220lbs for you old fashioned types) and have the kind of solid build which says, "Don't."

I reckon, though, my father could happily beat the living daylights outta me given half a chance.

No, it's not it though of course very earnest liberal types will vociferously denounce a light smack for misbehaving as being bullying or only used when the parent has a clear advantage in strenght, because they're cowards and lazy parents.

I can't help but think that the establishment of parents as a firm and unquestioned source of authority is essential to development. And I found it utterly amusing when I would see parents back in Australia with two kids - invariably pretentiously named, too - trying to reason with their bastard spawn of satan in a supermarket as the kids ran rampant. I'm sure the parents mean well, but we don't typically ascribe that kind of complexity to children - hence why the don't vote. Now I'm sure the child understands mummy has a headache and the children are being very anti-social, but you know what - I doubt the kid cares. At least however parents can not wring their hands over how abusive they are. After all, it's clear from my experience that all my friends who weren't disciplined as children are borderline writeoffs and those who were disciplined aren't, that smacking makes you as bad as Hitler.

Sure, the "do as I say, not as I do method isn't fair." I don't recall life being fair either, but I may have missed that memo. I have a friend who's farted about in the same University course since he was 18 (I'm 26 now). I have 2 degress, so does our other best mate, and our combined income doesn't match his first job, six-figure salary. Life sometimes isn't fair, but I'd say thanks to my parents establishing values, rules and respect in me I don't fold like a ******* accordion as a result.

E_S

 

So if you follow that logic, children who aren't subjected to your kind of discipline have smaller chances in life??

If that was true, I'd be a lazy, spoiled brat that dropped out of school and lives from welfare now. I'm glad to tell you that this isn't the case (okay, the "spoiled brat" part might be true sometimes ), and that I'm very grateful that my parents raised me in a way that did not include spanking, smacking or whatever. And don't worry, I don't plan to live from welfare anytime soon. I think the way my parents raised me was very successful - yeah, I'm gonna say that here without trying to sound arrogant or anything, cause I think the way I turned out has much to do with what my parents did and did not. I have a great relationship with them, and should I ever have children, I will do everything exactly as they did.

 

Letting children just learn on their own is where we get the brats of today. Children need boundaries and limitations put on them. If you let them just "learn from their own mistakes", they will run wild. THAT is lazy parenting.


My parents did and I'm a responsible citizen. So your whole argument is crap to me. Not that it wouldn't be any way, but from my experience it's still crappy. That is a paremt that trust's their child.

 

Sorry E_S, guess I wasn't thinking. Couldn't you have PMed me instead though? I'm not exactly new here, but it's good to know I only get noticed if I say something I shouldn't. Not sure why I'm bothering again, but here's hoping this will get read, and for what I'm actually saying.

To those saying that smacking is the last resort, I repeat the question; what do you do when even that doesn't work? My friend's two year old becomes more defiant when he's with her than with me, and she's the one who hits him if he doesn't listen. Even after she's "punished" him, he keeps it up. Almost like he's daring her to do it again. What do you do then? I'm hearing assumptions that after a spanking, that's that, problem solved. Go talk to a teenager who's wound up in jail and ask him if his parents hit him. I'd bet they did. A lot. Ask him what the impact was. He'll tell you it made him more rebellious than before. Trying to control a kid doesn't work, and that's what you're trying to do when you hit them. You're not giving them the chance to work it out for themselves, but instead trying to force them to do as you say, period.

E_S, how old are the kids you work with? And why so many? There's a reason most U.S. schools have class sizes of around 20 or less.

That brings up another question. How is it that teachers all over the country manage to handle their classes just fine when they're not allowed to use corporal punishment?

J-Rod, fathers tend to care more how their sons turn out, and think of their daughters as their "little girls". They want to control the son, but protect the daughter. At the same time, most boys are trying very hard not to be like their fathers, just as I know I don't want to turn into my mother. So you run into a problem there. The more discipline is used, the more he rebels, as I said earlier. So it becomes cyclical. Eventually corporal punishments seem like the only solution. Was he any less difficult to deal with because of that? I doubt it, but you were there, not me.

However, would it be appropriate for a parent to lightly slap their child's hand if they were reaching for a cookie jar? How about a hot stove? Technically, that is hitting a child as a form of punishment. Would you call the cops for that?

How is that appropriate? How does one kind of pain replacing another work? Might as well just let him get burned - at least then the parent isn't the one inflicting the pain. And for the cookie jar, they'll only learn to reach for it when you're not looking.

Everyone here who is in favor of corporal punishment justifies it by differentiating it from abuse. The trouble is, the line is completely imaginary. Hitting is hitting. No matter what the intent or degree is, it's the same thing. "Last resort" is an excuse. No one's been able to tell me what you do when spanking doesn't work.

And just because it's technically legal doesn't automatically make it okay.

It is not a black-and-white issue. Spanking/smacking should never be used as the first response, nor should it be used by itself, but at the same time that doesn't mean that it should never be used.

It is a black-and-white issue. It's being complicated so that people feel justified in doing it. There's no proof that it's more effective than actual parenting - being involved in what your kids are doing. If you're involved and they're still acting out, then you're not involved enough.

These days it seems like people expect to be able to pop out a kid and set him in front of a TV, and that'll be that. The era of immediacy strikes again. "No, don't do that," mommy says as she answers her cell phone in the grocery store. "You keep that up and I'll take you outside and spank you." The problem there, as usual, is the parent.

 

Everyone here who is in favor of corporal punishment justifies it by differentiating it from abuse. The trouble is, the line is completely imaginary. Hitting is hitting. No matter what the intent or degree is, it's the same thing.

Hitting is hitting, yes. However, that does not make hitting abuse. I could hit/tackle someone to move them out of the way of a speeding truck. Is that abuse?

Hit and abuse have two very different definitions because they are two completely different concepts. You can abuse someone by hitting them, but that doesn't mean that all hitting is abuse. You can also abuse someone by speaking to them, that doesn't mean that all speech is abuse either.

It is a black-and-white issue. It's being complicated so that people feel justified in doing it. There's no proof that it's more effective than actual parenting - being involved in what your kids are doing. If you're involved and they're still acting out, then you're not involved enough.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Virtually nothing in this universe is a black-and-white issue. You are over-simplifying the matter because you wish to treat it as a black-and-white issue. There are virtually always shades of gray.

In nature, pain is a teaching tool. It's whole purpose is for our body to tell us that something is not right. It is a part of life. It's like the old joke where a man goes to his doctor and says "It hurts when I lift my arm." The doctor replies "Then do do that."

That's the purpose of pain.

Does that make pain bad? Not at all. It is a tool that your body uses to communicate with your brain, nothing more. It is used to help teach you which activities are bad for you (i.e. you hurt your knee, the pain tells you to avoid walking on it).

Kimball Kinnison

 

If pain's all fine and good, why not just let them get burned?

 

Because you can provide a great deal more control over the situation by slapping their hand (even lightly to keep them from touching the hot burner) than you can just letting them get burned.

That's one of the things that you seem to have missed in what I said: lightly slap their hand. A light slap doesn't even hurt, but instead serves to move the hand out of the way.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't believe he ever said that pain is good. He said that pain teaches, which is true. You don't let them get burned because you know what will happen. Just letting a child get a third degree burn is far, far more abusive than a slap to the hand. You've taught your lesson and that stinger on the hand that you gave will be gone a lot sooner than a burn.

 

If that's all it is, then why not take the hand and move it without any kind of hitting involved? Hitting seems like a knee-jerk reaction in this instance, which can't be a good thing. It should never be that.

And I never said you should just let a kid get burned. I said if you're going to hit him you might as well, but there are always other ways to deal with a situation.

 

If that's all it is, then why not take the hand and move it without any kind of hitting involved? Hitting seems like a knee-jerk reaction in this instance, which can't be a good thing. It should never be that.

Since you decided to get all technical with "hitting is hitting", I'm going to return the favor.

Technically speaking, any time you come into physical contact with another person, you have just hit them. It is entirely a difference of degree from there on.

So, where is the threshold between "good" hitting (i.e. gently touching someone) and "bad" hitting (i.e. abuse)?

That was part of the point that I was trying to get across with the "lightly slap" questions. If it is such a black-and-white issue, then where is that clearly defined line between black and white?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Oh please. Hitting can also refer to dealing cards, but I doubt anyone thought that was what I meant either.

If you insist on getting into this, here is the definition of "slap". Perhaps I should have used "slap", "smack", or "spank", but I used "hit" instead because it would cover all of those, and I wasn't expecting to get into a linguistic nitpicking match. But you did say "slap", which is not just any kind of physical contact, but a very specifically defined one. Let's assume I meant slap, as I was responding to what you said, which referred to it as slapping.

This is exactly what I mean by complicating things.

Can anyone give me one situation in which there is no better way to deal with a child than by slapping, smacking, or spanking them?