Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is not abuse. That's spanking, and is the best method for disciplining a child. It must be started when the child iss very young, usually before 1 year old. I first spanked my son when he crawled over and started fingering an electrical socket out of curiosity. I grabbed his hand away from it, put on an angry face, pointed at the socket, shouted, "No, no!" at him, popped him on the diaper twice, pointed at the socket again, shouted "No, no!" again, and let him go.
He was astonished, of course, and went to tears immediately, as is inevitable. He was too young to understand the English words, but understood the fear and the pain... which was what I intended. I pointed again at the socket and said, "No, no!" again. My intention was to get across to him that if he did anything with anything that looked like that electrical socket, very bad things would immediately happen to him that he could not stop or avoid.
Maybe he never would have fiddled with a socket again, even without the spanking. But there's no reason to assume that, and lots of reason to assume he would. He was curious, just as any normal child is. And it was even possible that he might have found a stray paper clip or gum wrapper some day, and push it into the socket, again out of curiosity.
Spanking is unpleasant. But this instance may have saved his life. And that is why spanking is justified. I could not have explained to him WHY the socket was bad to play with. I could only make him very interested in avoiding any electrical sockets, from then on.
I also achieved something else: He had the conviction afterward, that when Daddy said No, he meant it, and if the boy did it anyway he knew he would wind up with a sore fanny. And so he became very interested in doing what Daddy said... and I never had to spank him again. (Well, once, when he toddled out into a street without looking. but that also was a once-only.)
Spanking when very young, when done right (i.e. no injury, with clear reasons pointed out, happens quickly and is over quickly), prevents dangerous behavior... and also prevents future spanking.
When done wrong, it is probably more destructive than halpful, and should not be done. If you let a child get away with bad behavior with no such instant punishment, and then a few years later spank him the next time he does it, he'll learn merely that occasionally the behavior gets him a punishment... but usually it doesn't.
If you merely try to explain to him why he should not do the bad behavior, many children will take that as an oportunity to talk you OUT of genuine punishment... and will learn quickly how to wrap you around his little finger. He certainly won't learn to do what you say, at least not until he reaches an age when his maturity is high enough to think of others more than he thinks of himself.
"Frustration" is absolutely the wrong reason for spanking. So is anger. A desire to get him to want to avoid the bad behavior without causing him any actual inury or long-term fear, is the reason for spanking.
empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of cases says spanking does not work.
Sorry, no.
Empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of cases says spanking the wrong way does not work. See my examples above.
Quote:
A simple question: do you know that it was the spanking that stopped the dangerous behavior? You did startle him with "NO!".
Yes, I do know that the spanking (and the NO, and the scary looks I gave him, they must all be done together) stopped the bad behavior. Because my wife has never spanked him, but uses the NO and scary looks, and he blows her off and goes right back to the wrong behavior.
Most children will respond to things that (they think) directly harm them. And will not respond to things that clearly don't... such as loud NO's and scary looks. The trick is, finding things they think will actually hurt them, but actually don't do any damage. Spanking (a swat of the hand to the rear end) is one such, and few better have been found.
I think realization will only occur in a small bright minority, but children are going to hit other children. Will a parent hitting them and telling them not to hit increase or decrease the child's tendency to hit. I think a child hits in anger or frustration so reasoning is not a factor anyway. My kids act like my wife and me. They do not create habits out of what we tell them to do, but out of what the consistently see us do. The singling out of spanking is the inherent injustice. The child does not have to have a very good reason to do anything, but it is the parents responsibility to justify every action taken.
What is the basis for the supposed "injustice"--I mean, a basis that would not be equally present in the case of any other parent-child interaction the child finds unpleasant?
What is the basis for the supposed "injustice"--I mean, a basis that would not be equally present in the case of any other parent-child interaction the child finds unpleasant?
Heh, I knew I was playing a little loose with the word "injustice" but I did not think it would be attacked. If injustice does mean that there is an imbalance of fairness, which I believe it is, then a timeout, a startling, a lecture, an explanation is not equal to a hit. A strike from a trusted friend feels like a betrayal. It is more direct and always a punishment. The others are guidance and teaching. One could argue that a swat is guidance, but I think if you did argue that way, it would be an argument for conditioning or instilling fear of a thing. I think the fear or the swat coming from one's most loved friend is an imbalance of fairness on both sides. Why is it that the parent can hit a child, but a child must NEVER hit a parent?
Heh, I knew I was playing a little loose with the word "injustice" but I did not think it would be attacked. If injustice does mean that there is an imbalance of fairness, which I believe it is, then a timeout, a startling, a lecture, an explanation is not equal to a hit. A strike from a trusted friend feels like a betrayal. It is more direct and always a punishment. The others are guidance and teaching.
Sounds very convenient. Seriously, I would suggest that a spanking is a more serious sanction than the others you mention, but I don't see it as a thing of a different kind--maybe different from an explanation, but an explanation is not incompatible with a spanking and obviously ought to accompany it (or any other sanction) in any case.
Quote:
One could argue that a swat is guidance, but I think if you did argue that way, it would be an argument for conditioning or instilling fear of a thing. I think the fear or the swat coming from one's most loved friend is an imbalance of fairness on both sides.
I think the description of parents and children as "friends" may give us a warm fuzzy if we don't think too much about it, but the emotionally self-indulgence basic to it comes out in these sorts of analogies.
Quote:
Why is it that the parent can hit a child, but a child must NEVER hit a parent?
For the same reason that a child never diapers a parent; because an appropriate occasion never presents itself!
The obvious fallacy here is the insistence, against all common sense, that adults and children are equals. They are not, and we are waging war on human nature by pretending that they are.
Empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of cases says spanking the wrong way does not work. See my examples above.
Yes, I do know that the spanking (and the NO, and the scary looks I gave him, they must all be done together) stopped the bad behavior. Because my wife has never spanked him, but uses the NO and scary looks, and he blows her off and goes right back to the wrong behavior.
Most children will respond to things that (they think) directly harm them. And will not respond to things that clearly don't... such as loud NO's and scary looks. The trick is, finding things they think will actually hurt them, but actually don't do any damage. Spanking (a swat of the hand to the rear end) is one such, and few better have been found.
Neither My wife nor I spank our children, and my daughters will blow off my wife sometimes, but not me. Perhaps it is your demeanor, or your consistency. Perhaps it is the swat. You cannot know that there is a difference because circumstances in real life do not correlate like they would in a lab. The variables are too many. Also, have you heard of confirmation or cognitive bias. It is the idea that the thing that you believe or do influences of how your perceive the world. If you think spanking works then your mind will take all the times it did "work" and use them to support suppositions, and take all the instances that it doesn't "work" and discard them. The absolute overwhelming majority of research says that spanking can be effective for stopping dangerous behavior in that instance. Of course, so would pick them up. I will look up some peer reviewed sources on spanking right now to be sure though. Can you give me a good reason to be for spanking? I feel my reasoning is more sound and the safe bet is against spanking. Most parents spank because their parents spanked. So, did you develop your own reasons to spank from a blank state, eliminating prior assumed truisms, assertions, axioms, etc., or did you assume its value and correctness and then base your reasoning on that assertion?
Sounds very convenient. Seriously, I would suggest that a spanking is a more serious sanction than the others you mention, but I don't see it as a thing of a different kind--maybe different from an explanation, but an explanation is not incompatible with a spanking and obviously ought to accompany it (or any other sanction) in any case.
I think the description of parents and children as "friends" may give us a warm fuzzy if we don't think too much about it, but the emotionally self-indulgence basic to it comes out in these sorts of analogies.
For the same reason that a child never diapers a parent; because an appropriate occasion never presents itself!
The obvious fallacy here is the insistence, against all common sense, that adults and children are equals. They are not, and we are waging war on human nature by pretending that they are.
I consider myself to be my child's friend, but I would never let that get between discipline, to think that I am going to let my kids run wild is absurd. I was a NCO in the army, a ranger, and a sniper/recon team leader. I am not a novice in leadership. You do not see a difference in a physical strike and a non-physical correction/consequence? Um, I guess. A child swats parent, the parent the says "no hit", the child then swats the parent back. Occasion presented. The idea that the things I am saying are not very obvious worries me.
Your "example" begs the question, why were you given access to matches? And if you snuck out to were they were that is ultimately your parents fault NOT yours.
I would also point out that since we are going exclusively on anecdotes here, no one in my family was spanked, the kids were not disrespectful (and the parents were not either) and didn't talk back sarcastically.
I think parents who hit, are also the ones who talk disrespectfully to their children and to each other, and kids learn how to behave first and foremost from their parents.
Oh brother. I wasn't "given access" to matches. Obviously I cam across them somewhere, and I liked the smell of them when they were struck. I took them out to the garage when my dad wasn't home so I wouldn't get caught. And no, it wasn't my parents fault, it was MINE. At that age... maybe 7 or 8, I knew better, but thought I could get away with it.
Really, you read too much into things. Kids are sneaky, always have been, always will be. And it's their own fault sometimes. Deal with it.
Wait so let me get this straight, you hit a toddler because you cannot REASON with them to understand not to run in the road but you expect them to get the message that you can hit those who are smaller "under specific circumstances"???
Ok.
Quite a stretch here. No one is specifically talking about toddlers. Where did you get that from? Or are you just using that to make a point you can't really make in the real spirit of the topic? Using that as an example hurts your credibility in the discussion.
I was raised by my grandmother and she would tear my bottom up on occasion and if we did something wrong she gave it to us and then some . I never learned to talk back to her and I respected her and it was yes maam and no maam and I had better made good grades in school and if no good grades then there was no tv and no meant no . Guess what I can actually have a good conversation with someone and carry on an intellegent one as well . I think when we fail to displine as parents , we fail our children . I think kids learn when they are displined and if it takes a spanking to displine then so be it .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, no it doesn't.
