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.
Don't think I was attacking your parenting. On the contrary, you sound quite reasonable. I merely pointed out that certain posters here would consider holding a child down inappropriate--perhaps not as evil as spanking, but still inappropriate and ineffective. Recall that at the beginning of the thread I mentioned making a noncompliant child sit in a carseat against her will, and was chided because the right thing to do is to wait until the child decides she wants to sit there.
I think every parent's ultimate goal is for their children to understand the advantages of making good decisions and the consequences of making bad ones. The assumption that non-spankers want their children to understand the "why of discipline" and prevent negative behaviors from occurring, while the spankers just don't care about those things, is a very wrong one.
In fact, all punishments (or you can call them consequences if you like, but they are not "natural consequences") such as spanking, time-outs, removing possessions, enforced chores, and so forth are really just an adult using his or her superior size, strength, and position to impose his or her will on a child. We can argue about which of these is justifiable, which is cruel, which is effective and which ineffective, and so forth, but those are rather arbitrary distinctions and also depend a lot on the child. One child will do anything to avoid a time-out; another really doesn't care. I was spanked occasionally as a child and it didn't faze me, but I was crushed when my mother gave me the "silent treatment." It was far more cruel for my parent to refuse to respond to me for hours, than to give me a light spanking which was over in a moment. Yes, for me the spanking was "ineffective," but just the mention of spanking was enough to get my sister to comply immediately. Your mileage, and your child's, may vary.
^^^This. Especially bolded. One of the greatest challenges of parenting is figuring out what is effective, both long and short term, to get a child to understand how to behave and why. There is no one-size-fits-all. Things that seem so obvious in theory sometimes simply don't work in practice for a particular child.
Don't think I was attacking your parenting. On the contrary, you sound quite reasonable. I merely pointed out that certain posters here would consider holding a child down inappropriate--perhaps not as evil as spanking, but still inappropriate and ineffective. Recall that at the beginning of the thread I mentioned making a noncompliant child sit in a carseat against her will, and was chided because the right thing to do is to wait until the child decides she wants to sit there.
I think every parent's ultimate goal is for their children to understand the advantages of making good decisions and the consequences of making bad ones. The assumption that non-spankers want their children to understand the "why of discipline" and prevent negative behaviors from occurring, while the spankers just don't care about those things, is a very wrong one.
In fact, all punishments (or you can call them consequences if you like, but they are not "natural consequences") such as spanking, time-outs, removing possessions, enforced chores, and so forth are really just an adult using his or her superior size, strength, and position to impose his or her will on a child. We can argue about which of these is justifiable, which is cruel, which is effective and which ineffective, and so forth, but those are rather arbitrary distinctions and also depend a lot on the child. One child will do anything to avoid a time-out; another really doesn't care. I was spanked occasionally as a child and it didn't faze me, but I was crushed when my mother gave me the "silent treatment." It was far more cruel for my parent to refuse to respond to me for hours, than to give me a light spanking which was over in a moment. Yes, for me the spanking was "ineffective," but just the mention of spanking was enough to get my sister to comply immediately. Your mileage, and your child's, may vary.
Well, I would never give my child the silent treatment, either. I can't imagine wanting to inflict real pain on my kids--physical or emotional. I just can't. And if the goal isn't to inflict pain, then why spank? To say you're really angry? I say, "I'm really angry." I do think there are better ways than physical punishment. Full stop. Always. No exception. I judge those who spank. I do not apologize for it. And when I have snapped at my kids in anger when it isn't warranted, I have apologized. I will admit I am wrong because it doesn't diminish my role as the parent. I can't imagine how we'd feel if I spanked when it wasn't called for, or when I was wrong about something.
The idea of waiting for compliance doesn't mean that you always let things stretch on forever. Sometimes the parent has to take control and shove an arm into a carseat harness. And it can be damn inconvenient. Does it mean I missed out on some things? Yes. Did I ever have a kid howl the entire way home? Yes. Was that fun? No. Would I do it differently? No, absolutely not. Every sacrifice was an opportunity to build a better kid, a better relationship with that kid, and a kid that turns into a great adult. Worth it.
I think this IS a discussion of degrees or appropriate limits. Would I grab a child's arm and pull him away from traffic? Of course! I would do that for an adult, too. Yes! That's appropriate. Seeing an adult engage in behavior I don't like & then slapping them across the face wouldn't be.
When I was a child, a neighbor family had a special belt for whippings, hung on a nail in the wall. I could hear when a kid was getting whipped, and it was just awful. Funny thing is, those kids would misbehave in public all the time, because you can't break out the belt and take down your kid's pants in a restaurant or store. Sure, they got it when they got home. But there was no talk of expectations, appropriate behavior, etc. "You're gonna get it when we get home" seemed to make the kids think, "If I'm gonna get it, I might as well make it worth it." It sickened me then. It sickens me now, just thinking about it.
So, lest you think I don't know the difference between whipping a kid on bare skin with a leather belt and a "soft tap" to the diapered rear, I do. I know that the one will not hurt. So, what is the point of it? Do you REALLY think one soft tap on a diapered rear makes any difference whatsoever? Is it the threat of greater violence that makes it work? Or is it occasionally something more than a soft tap on a diapered rear? I honestly do not understand the point. If the spank isn't meant to hurt, then what consequence is that? Why do it at all?
All of these options are useful at various times, but while they involve distracting, enticing, and bribing children, none of them actually involves teaching them to obey the adult in charge. That seems to be a concept that is being actively avoided. Yes, I could probably have gotten my children to leave the park (since that seems to be the standard example here) by promising them ice cream after lunch or an hour of a favorite TV program or a session with Play-Doh.
But how is that child going to respond the next time I need them to leave the park? "What treat do I get when I get home? Nothing? Oh well, I'm not coming then." If you really don't think this is what will happen, either your child was the Angel Gabriel himself, or you don't have kids. I'm going to have to keep this up. Now I need to offer a bribe, a couple of happy and special play options ("Legos or Play-Doh?") or a longer park session ("Ten more swings...Time's up! OK...well, just ten more and then we really need to go...") every time I need the child to do something.
And I know people will pop up here and say, "If you tell your children to obey you just because you are the parent, they are going to follow the child molester right into his van!" (I think my child can tell the difference between me, and Preschool Teacher too for that matter, and a random stranger. My child and I have talked about this).
"Don't you want your child to think for himself and do what is right because he wants to?" (Yes, eventually, but I don't expect this at two or three years old. Little children have parents because they don't know how to make good decisions, and not every decision is on the level of "a cookie or a Popsicle?" Sometimes--often--they need to do what I say without liking it).
"So that means you get your child to obey by beating him!" (Because that's the only other choice? Bribe and jolly the child along in every situation, or beat him?)
Yes, there were times I put my small child in a car seat against her will. I did not wait every single time until she decided that getting into the car seat was what she really wanted to do after all. This meant using mild physical force (e.g. holding her down while I snapped the buckles) when it was indicated. No, I did not beat her for not obeying, but I can not say I never gave any of my kids a quick smack on the rear to get their attention when the situation was dire. But I did not "beat" them, and my kids are all teens now and I don't see any indication that were traumatized or think it is OK to assault people.
I asked early on in this thread if people considered that a single smack of the hand on a toddler's behind was assault. Some said it was a useless and lazy way to parent, which was not the question. A couple of others said yes, it was assault, and compared it to attacking a stranger in the street. Child abuse is illegal in the US and you are not allowed to beat your children. But it perplexes me that people see no difference between a light swat to get a toddler's attention, and a beating.
If you say that one thing leads to another, that a swat will lead to a beating, then the problem is you, and no, you shouldn't lay a finger on your child in that case. If every time you take a sip of wine, it ends with your getting dead drunk, then you shouldn't be touching alcohol either. But most people don't have that problem.
I don't believe that obedience for obedience sake is necessary nor would I want to encourage it. Partly, I think that if you are requiring obedience when it is not really necessary, you are getting compliance, but the child has not learned when it is important.
Giving a child choices that are acceptable to you is not bribery. I would not give a choice like icecream or popsicles or cookies because I don't use food that way. I might give him that choice if we were having a desert anyway, but not to come home from the park or to get into a carseat, etc.
There is a difference between rewarding good behavior and bribery. Bribery can become a situation that teaches a child to act out to get what they want. OTOH, giving a child a choice before he is acting out is not bribery and doesn't lead to such expectations. Bribery occurs under duress. The effective use of rewards is quite different, because you are compensating your child for his good behavior (in this case coming quietly to the car after a small amount of time spent doing something like swinging - we counted the swings so we never had the child insist on more swings). Note that if you are doing this consistently, your child understands the choices he has.
Children's behavior is most often linked to their developmental stage. The techniques you use should be tailored to their age and development.
I do, btw, consider hitting a child on the diapered bottom to be assault although it is not as egregious as beating or as hitting an adult on the street. It will stop the behavior temporarily, but it teaches your child nothing except that you are bigger and stronger than he is.
Now the parent may be just a few steps ahead of the child. But Mrs. Busybody looks out her window and sees this child with no apparent adult supervision, calls the police and keeps the child until the police arrive. JUST AN EXAMPLE.
I'm glad I dont live where ever you do if a parent being a few steps in front of their child is considered abandonment.
And how is someone going to keep my child? Are they going to snatch them away? Great, I'll wait for the police so I can have them charged with kidnapping.
It's making the assumption that it would have worked IF ONLY I had tried harder, e.g. I did it wrong. How far do I keep walking? 50 feet? 100 feet? All the way across the parking lot? Until the kid can't see me anymore? How long do I leave him out of my sight? I think you underestimate the time and distance I gave him before I realized what a stubborn streak he had and had to reign it in for his safety and my liability.
You're the one making assumptions about my post. That strategy doesn't work at the park because you will always cave and go back for the child. It has nothing to do with how far away you were from the child. They're going to call your bluff and see that youbwere lying because no parent in their right mind would actually leave a child at the park.
Natural consequences need to be followed through. Leaving your child at the park is never going to happen, so there is no natural consequence there. You will, hopefully, always come back for the child and have to come up with a new plan to get them to leave. So why say something that is, rightfully so, just an empty threat?
With my kid time-out worked when she was younger but not since she was about four years old. She developed quite bad behavioural problems then, bad enough to involve social workers and psychologists/psychiatrists. Reward charts barely worked. What really worked for her, and still does work, was finding her 'currency' which I believe I learnt from this forum. TV time is really important to her but if she breaks the rules (which are simple and few because of her issues, mainly hitting, outright rudeness, and refusing to follow instructions) I write on the weekly noticeboard no TV for the day (sometimes the next day too depending on how big the 'crime') and it works amazingly. Its not just that she wants her TV time, she has also learnt that when she behaves nicer, I am happier and less stressed which makes her happier and less stressed, same for everyone else around her. She's learnt the value of good behaviour, and shows great pride in herself when she's been good for a long time, and has learnt to stop herself in the midst of bad behaviour on occasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
"Allow"? Is spanking illegal in Scandinavia? Could a parent get arrested for spanking their child?
Yes. Its illegal in many countries now. In Finland at least parents are unlikely to get arrested but child protection will get involved. Hair pulling is apparently a thing, instead of spanking, although its not really allowed either but is in more of a grey area - I was asked by my kid's social workers at the beginning if I use hair pulling so its common enough to be a problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celesteren
Interesting that no one responded who was spanked as a child. I was. It was the only way my dad could get me to behave. I was very strong willed. But he spanked - he did not beat - and I understood that the spanking was a consequence of my having crossed the line, not the way to solve a problem. Reasoning with me was pointless - I wanted my way, period. Sending me to my room was pointless - I didn't have a room to begin with and was an introvert, so being alone didn't bother me. He spanked me until he noticed that my freedom to leave the house was more of a deterrent than a spanking, then he began to ground me and never laid a finger on me again. It really all depends on the child.
I was spanked as a child, it wasn't effective at all as to me it was just a short moment of pain and then done. Being sent to my room wasn't a punishment for me either but it was effective as in my room I had my 'thinking spot' where I always used to sit when angry or upset and it would calm me down and make me think about what I had one. The most effective thing my parents did was talk to me about what I did and explain why it was wrong, how it had hurt them/my friend/whoever - that made me feel more terrible than any spanking could and also made me want to change unlike a spanking which just made me want to be sneakier next time.
OK, let me put it this way, though my patience with you is wearing thin. We were discussing the issue of leaving the child behind at a park. Now the parent may be just a few steps ahead of the child. But Mrs. Busybody looks out her window and sees this child with no apparent adult supervision, calls the police and keeps the child until the police arrive. JUST AN EXAMPLE.
The first example is a health issue. Just why do you think kids have parents if they can make their own health decisions at an age when they're too young to know they need a coat?
The second example, meh, either way, but you're probably making a lot more work for yourself doing it your way.
No one's condoning beating, and no one has suggested spanking for not wearing a coat or taking a toy along on an outdoor activity. Some of this is, as somebodynew wanted, "just talk".
Putting on a coat is NOT a health issue unless the weather is so cold it will cause immediate problems. Most of the time, it only causes a small amount of being cold. Bring the coat along and the child can put it on if they are cold. Are they going to be out for a long time? If not, I would not worry. By the same token, I have seen toddlers who want to wear winter coats in the summer. They can take the coat off when they get too warm in that case as well.
Coats are actually not recommended in carseats, so if they are only going to the car, they don't need one.
You're the one making assumptions about my post. That strategy doesn't work at the park because you will always cave and go back for the child. It has nothing to do with how far away you were from the child. They're going to call your bluff and see that youbwere lying because no parent in their right mind would actually leave a child at the park.
Natural consequences need to be followed through. Leaving your child at the park is never going to happen, so there is no natural consequence there. You will, hopefully, always come back for the child and have to come up with a new plan to get them to leave. So why say something that is, rightfully so, just an empty threat?
Spain itself outlawed smaking children in 2007, there are now 52 countries were spanking is illegal, the most recent ban relating to France. In most European countries spanking is now illegal, the UK, Italy, Switzerland and the Czech Republic being notable exceptions.
I bet there's tons of Spanish abuelas who still do it anyway lol. My stepdad's father was a Spaniard. You can ask my stepdad how many times he was spanked. Its more culturally accepted in Latin cultures. I can't speak for northern European standards.
I think its ridiculous for a country to outlaw spanking. Spanking is not the same as abuse. The state has no right telling me how to raise my kids.
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.
