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.
I expect a toddler to understand that disciplinary spanking of one's own children is a "mommy and daddy option", like driving a car or staying up until midnight. It's not that complicated.
And if they can understand that than they can understand that running in the street is a "mommy and daddy" option as well. The logic is the same "you are not allowed to do ______". If you child can reason out that they cannot hit any one, than they can understand not to run in the street.
Meanwhile, you have not hit someone you supposedly love.
And if they can understand that than they can understand that running in the street is a "mommy and daddy" option as well. The logic is the same "you are not allowed to do ______". If you child can reason out that they cannot hit any one, than they can understand not to run in the street.
Understanding logic and obeying the dictates of logic are two entirely different things.
Let's move the discussion up a few years. A 9-year-old, say, might understand full well the moral and logical reasons why he ought not forge his mother's signature to a bad report card, but may choose to do it anyway. Consequences, including the possibility of a spanking, serve to make one side of the internal "debate" stronger than it would ordinarily be.
I expect a toddler to understand that disciplinary spanking of one's own children is a "mommy and daddy option", like driving a car or staying up until midnight. It's not that complicated.
Well, they do not understand it, they just do it. I think the difference is more profound than it immediately seems. You can use an equation to gain an output but you may not understand why you're getting that output past a superficial level. Also, kids NEED sleep or they will under develop, kids WILL die if you let them drive a car. Maybe they can't reason it, but neither can most parents.
Then you have absolutely no reason to hit a child at all. If your child is capable of reasoning than you shouldn't hit them.
See post #33.
You are attributing someone else's defense of spanking to me. I've never argued that spanking should be used only, or even primarily, on pre-rational children.
Well, they do not understand it, they just do it. I think the difference is more profound than it immediately seems. You can use an equation to gain an output but you may not understand why you're getting that output past a superficial level. Also, kids NEED sleep or they will under develop, kids WILL die if you let them drive a car. Maybe they can't reason it, but neither can most parents.
This is all true, but the point was to answer the supposed confusion they will experience on encountering the fact that mommies and daddies can "hit smaller people" to discipline them but they cannot do the same. In fact, they encounter all sorts of inequities in adult-child standards almost every minute of every day, without being thrown by most of them. If there is a reason for singling out spanking as one thing out of all others that they can't fathom, it hasn't been presented.
This is all true, but the point was to answer the supposed confusion they will experience on encountering the fact that mommies and daddies can "hit smaller people" to discipline them but they cannot do the same. In fact, they encounter all sorts of inequities in adult-child standards almost every minute of every day, without being thrown by most of them. If there is a reason for singling out spanking as one thing out of all others that they can't fathom, it hasn't been presented.
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.
I was spanked as a child, with belts, hangers, spoons, shoes, etc. I was kicked and had my hair pulled until it left welts on my scalp. I had my clothes torn off and was locked out naked. My mom used to stop the car and put me out on the side of the road any time she got mad, no matter how far from home we were.
That's not spanking, it's child abuse.
Quote:
Is a good swat or two with a bare hand on the read end (with clothes on) abuse?
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.
Quote:
I just can't see hitting a helpless little person. I have wanted to though, always because I was beyond frustration.
"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.
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.
You make many good points; empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of cases says spanking does not work. A simple question: do you know that it was the spanking that stopped the dangerous behavior? You did startle him with "NO!". That could have been the cause. Another area that concerns me is the difference between bad behavior and dangerous behavior. I am defining bad behavior as behavior that will not harm anyone. If you spank for bad behavior, you are spanking because they did not do what you told them or perhaps they embarrassed you or offended your sensibility. In all cases I do not think BAD behavior could ever warrant hitting.
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.
