Spanking

stovelid

Hookah wrote: »

You can appreciate it's an emotive subject for some.

Of course. Stepping over the line re: physical punishment of children is an terrible thing. Ditto all the stuff from the "good old days" about kids getting strapped and whatever.

As for smacking, I think we're all in agreement that it should never be the first port of call re: discipline.

Hookah

Dudess wrote: »

It's only fair so, that you distinguish between that and a light smack as a very last resort, Hookah, which is what people are advocating - not as a first measure at all.

The point is, it's resorted to when there ISN'T another option - when every other option has been tried. The talk throughout this thread (not from you necessarily) is as if parents are literally opting to spank because they couldn't be arsed trying anything else - it's tediously disingenuous at this stage...

Fair enough.

I'm not judging anybody for it.

Dudess

Dismissing it outright as lazy parenting is what's lazy...

gargleblaster

I'm curious about what situations exist in which every other possible solution has been attempted, and therefore there is no possible other solution besides hitting a child. (I dislike the euphemism 'swat' - hitting is hitting.)

I sincerely do not believe that is ever the case. I think parents lose their patience and don't bother educating themselves about alternative methods of dealing with issues. Therefore it is lazy parenting.

Having this opinion is not lazy, it is a result of raising kids and doing research.

prinz

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Smacking can work. But it's a vastly inferior method of punishment, and it really should be a last resort.

Of course it should be. However I'm not going to accuse someone who uses it as an absolute last resort or because they've snapped (a handful of times over an entire childhood for example) like never before of assault or child abuse, and I mean spanking etc, not batin' the lard out of a kid.

No kid should recoil from their parents because they are permanently terrified of being slapped or smacked or spanked, however no parent should be terrified of giving their kid the very odd spank on the ass for fear of being branded a child abuser/lazy parenting. Parents need to maintain their authority position, and if a spank is what it takes to remind an unruly kid seriously acting the brat then so be it, I'd call it anything but lazy.

It's like raising your voice. You shouldn't have to raise your voice to your kids, but at the same time, letting the odd roar to stop them dead in their tracks while doing something dangerous etc is not abuse, or the easy way out, even if it scares the bejaysus out of them at the time.

There is a big difference between an authoritarian style of parenting (which I would call a parent who frequently uses physical force as a disciplining technique) and authoritative (which I would call a parent who gives the kid a lot of lee-way but at the same time isn't afraid to show the kid who is in charge if they step way out of line - with the odd spank when all attempts at resolving a very serious issue by other means have failed)

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-style.htm

Authoritative works far better than Indulgent parenting, and I've seen plenty of cases of parents indulging terrible behaviour rather than bring the kid back to reality with a sore backside.

Authoritative parents provide structure, nurturance, and supervision to their children. Their occasional spanking is not harmful. Authoritarian parents are controlling and are likely to use spanking as a way to control children and halt behaviors that are judged as "unacceptable" according to a parent's rigid ideas of "good" and "bad" behavior. Permissive parents provide too little structure and discipline overall. Thus, these last two types of parents, it is not spanking that is the problem; it is the entire parenting style.

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/spank.htm

So no, I don't agree that it's automatically a sign of lazy parenting.

Baumrind has studied the effects of corporal punishment on children, and has concluded that mild spanking, in the context of an authoritative (NOT authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Baumrind

CrazyRabbit

stovelid wrote: »

Very sorry about that but it still doesn't justify the conflation of light smacking with assault or bullying. And it seems strange that you seem so affected by your own experience (which is fair enough) but yet readily dismiss other people's as incorrect out of hand.

People really don't seem to get what I am saying, even though I've made it perfectly clear several times.

It's simple really.

• Any physical attack on another person is assault. Whether that assault has a serious effect on someone is irrelevant...it's still assault. To smack another person is, at its core, a (very minor) violent act.
• If you smacked an adult on the backside if they did something you didn't like, they'd be (rightfully) annoyed as it is not acceptable. Yet, we deem it acceptable to do the same thing to a child???
• Smacking is a quick, lazy punishment. It requires no creativity & little effort. It's like junk food...convenient, but ultimately not very good.
• Smacking relies on an external source of discipline, which is a problem when the child gets older, more independent and that source of discipline isn't always around.
• Other types of punishment are more effective & teach true remorse, a more developed conscience & self discipline.

It regards to my personal experiences. I don't think smacking harmed me. It was the lack of other types of better punished that harmed me. That's why I dismiss the testimony of others who claim that 'smacking never hurt me", because I never claimed it did, nor is it relevant. My argument is that smacking is used instead of superior punishements which are better at moulding the personality of a child.

MagicSean

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Any physical attack on another person is assault. Whether that assault has a serious effect on someone is irrelevant...it's still assault.

Actually it is only assault if there is no consent.

gargleblaster

re: being branded a child abuser/lazy parent.

True, that is very unfair. Using a lazy method of parenting does not make you a lazy parent. And I would never accuse anyone who hit their child lightly of being a child abuser. It only seems logical to me to think of it as a mistake and a reason to learn better methods to use in those situations in the future.

I fail to see why calling spanking a lazy method of teaching children to behave is such an insult to some. However, given that this idea of using violence as a means of education was condoned in the bible, perhaps that's why it's so unbelievable that anyone could think it's just flat-out wrong to hit a child.

I also think it speaks volumes that animal trainers overwhelmingly agree that physical punishment is less effective than other means. If it doesn't work as effectively as other methods on animals, why use it on children?

CrazyRabbit

Quick question..

If another person saw your child behaving badly, would it be ok if they smacked your child?

I'm guessing that most people will say no.

prinz

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

People really don't seem to get what I am saying, even though I've made it perfectly clear several times..

That's because it's nonsense... because you are seriously trying to compare children to adults (if I told an adult to píss in a plastic pot with a Winnie the Pooh face on the front they wouldn't be happy, but it's acceptable for kids, WHYYYYYY?)

Smacking isn't always a quick and lazy punishment. I've talked to my mother about the few times she gave me a smack. She'd feel terrible about it, even though at the end of the day it was for my own good. It wasn't something she did because she couldn't be bothered thinking of anything else. Let's put that one to bed. Yes some parents use physical discipline as the first choice form of punishment without explaining whta the kid did wrong etc, others do not and what you are implying is that the parents with the first instinct of lashing out, are the same lazy parents as the parents who hold it as the very, very last option. Bull.

prinz

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Quick question..
If another person saw your child behaving badly, would it be ok if they smacked your child? I'm guessing that most people will say no.

Depends on who the person was, what the bad behaviour was, and what kind of smack it was. In other words it's impossible to answer yes or no to a question that is saturated with variables.

Dudess

A parent at the end of their tether with exasperation after trying every other option yet the kid is still going nuts... is hardly lazy. And hitting is not hitting - light slap does not = punch. Most parents feel awful about doing it but some kids are too difficult to reason with. I used to condemn it too until friends of mine started having kids - any of them who do it will say there is literally no option at times, and there are always hugs and apologies and tears (from the parent) afterwards. It's crap enough having to do it, without being judged - especially by non parents.

Love too how all the testimonies from people who did get the odd smack but who had otherwise great parents are being ignored...

CrazyRabbit

prinz wrote: »

That's because it's nonsense... because you are seriously trying to compare children to adults (if I told an adult to píss in a plastic pot with a Winnie the Pooh face on the front they wouldn't be happy, but it's acceptable for kids, WHYYYYYY?)

Sigh...

Yes, children and adults have to be treated differently in many areas. Toilet training a young child is one of those areas. Being hit/smacked/assaulted is not one of them...IMHO.

I give up. You can all go do what you want with your kids. In time, the primitive act of smacking will eventually disappear anyway.

Dudess

Yep, just ignore what people are saying...

gargleblaster

Dudess wrote: »

Love too how all the testimonies from people who did get the odd smack but who had otherwise great parents are being ignored...

And I love how despite the fact that it doesn't do any "significant" damage isn't being contested by anyone, that is still the most common argument used to defend the practice. Just because any damage may not be "significant" that does not mean it's the best thing to do.

I also love how everyone who defends the practice is ignoring the fact that even animal trainers won't defend using physical punishment on animals. To train animals. Even using 'swats' on pre-verbal children is *still* not the best method to educate them.

It's one thing to do it in a moment of exasperation, because you *think* that there aren't any other options. It's quite another thing entirely to intentionally not bother doing any research on alternate methods of teaching, so that you can avoid repeating an action that you "regret" the next time you find yourself in that situation.

Again, I have kids. Two of them. My kids never threw tantrums in public. Ever. They only ever did it once or twice at home. Maybe I hit the baby lotto or something, and just happened to luck into having very well-behaved children, but I don't think so. I think that my troubling myself to find out the best ways of teaching kids paid off. (Sorry to be tooting my own horn here, but seriously, this is just getting ridiculous at this point. Referring to spanking as 'lazy parenting' is an attack - FFS.)

Dudess

Yes you did hit the good baby lottery. Why would you be any better than the loving, patient, protective parents I know? Lots of children of excellent parents have tantrums, so yes, you're lucky. And sorry but I do think sneering "lazy parenting" is an attack.

gargleblaster

And of course everything but that part of my post is ignored, of course.


I didn't hit the 'baby lotto', there is no such thing. And no, I'm no better as a person than any other parent. What I am, though, is different from those who would punish tantrums with a swat.

Dudess

But you said yours don't have tantrums in the first place. Plus again, you're phrasing things as if the parents I and others are referring to just lash out immediately and don't bother with anything else...

gargleblaster

Dudess wrote: »

But you said yours don't have tantrums in the first place. Plus again, you're phrasing things as if the parents I and others are referring to just lash out immediately and don't bother with anything else...

Ah, sorry, no, I didn't mean to give you that impression. I thought I stated clearly that they didn't have more than a couple at home, but never did it in public.

And no, I also didn't mean to give the impression that I think it's being used as the first option. I've read the posts and nobody is defending that. I just don't understand how if it's regrettable and a last resort, and it is clearly not working since it has to be used more than once, why not look into other methods?


Also, I would like to apologize for soapboxing on this subject. Sorry.

Dudess

That's the point though - other methods HAVE been looked into...

MagicSean

gargleblaster wrote: »

Ah, sorry, no, I didn't mean to give you that impression. I thought I stated clearly that they didn't have more than a couple at home, but never did it in public.

And no, I also didn't mean to give the impression that I think it's being used as the first option. I've read the posts and nobody is defending that. I just don't understand how if it's regrettable and a last resort, and it is clearly not working since it has to be used more than once, why not look into other methods?


Also, I would like to apologize for soapboxing on this subject. Sorry.

Clearly you do not understand what "last resort" actually means.

Hookah

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Clearly you do not understand what "last resort" actually means.

I think 'last resort' is dependent on the level of patience of each individual parent.

prinz

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Being hit/smacked/assaulted is not one of them...IMHO..

Emotive issue for you I assume, that explains the reliance on emotive language.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I also love how everyone who defends the practice is ignoring the fact that even animal trainers won't defend using physical punishment on animals. To train animals.

That's because it's about as relevant as the earlier comparison to spanking adults. You don't train kids the same way you train adults. As for disciplining my own dog in the years gone past, yes I gave it the odd swipe with a rolled newspaper or the like.

gargleblaster wrote: »

It's one thing to do it in a moment of exasperation, because you *think* that there aren't any other options. It's quite another thing entirely to intentionally not bother doing any research on alternate methods of teaching, so that you can avoid repeating an action that you "regret" the next time you find yourself in that situation.

What happens when the research says the odd spanking is ok? because you know in conjunction with theoverall best approach to parenting spanking isn't something that should be ignored completely. Then again it's only some of the world' top child development and pyschological experts. Perhaps didn't bother doing any research on the topic.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I think that my troubling myself to find out the best ways of teaching kids paid off. (Sorry to be tooting my own horn here, but seriously, this is just getting ridiculous at this point. Referring to spanking as 'lazy parenting' is an attack - FFS.)

Good for you. So did other parents. My parents would say their approach paid off. So where does that leave us?

gargleblaster wrote: »

I just don't understand how if it's regrettable and a last resort, and it is clearly not working since it has to be used more than once, why not look into other methods?

You have a point tere, but only insofar as spanking a kid for the same actions/words/behaviour over and over. Then obviously it's not working and another approach is needed. There could however be two completely different reasons which brought about the spanking and in that instance just because you've gotten a spank for one thing it's not really relevant to a different situation, which leads to spanking being used more than once. Again I can speak for myself, I was spanked a small number of times, and 20-odd years later my mother (and I) can still remember the reason behind almost every occassion, and knows what I did that lead to them never happened again.

gargleblaster

What happens when the research says the odd spanking is ok? because you know in conjunction with theoverall best approach to parenting spanking isn't something that should be ignored completely. Then again it's only some of the world' top child development and pyschological experts. Perhaps didn't bother doing any research on the topic.

Those top child development and psychological experts are quite divided on the issue.

You have a point tere, but only insofar as spanking a kid for the same actions/words/behaviour over and over. Then obviously it's not working and another approach is needed. There could however be two completely different reasons which brought about the spanking and in that instance just because you've gotten a spank for one thing it's not really relevant to a different situation, which leads to spanking being used more than once. Again I can speak for myself, I was spanked a small number of times, and 20-odd years later my mother (and I) can still remember the reason behind almost every occassion, and knows what I did that lead to them never happened again.

That's good to know. At least we do know it was effective in your case and didn't need to be repeated. Obviously though the plural of anecdote is not data, etc etc ad nauseum.

The research you yourself cited said there is no "significant" damage. That raises a red flag for me.

Perhaps parents really are trying every tactic that they can find as an alternative to causing physical pain in order to educate their kids. In that case, I do feel for them. I can only hope that in those cases, that there are no underlying developmental or learning issues involved which might cause a wide variety of other methods to all fail, because in those cases I would think using pain as a learning tool would be even less effective. That's just a guess though obviously, perhaps it's even more warranted in those cases.



Now I'm wondering though - what about carers working with the elderly in convalescent homes? Would it be acceptable for the staff to swat them for not cooperating? My understanding is that it's considered abusive and isn't tolerated (or it isn't supposed to be, at least).

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

That's good to know. At least we do know it was effective in your case and didn't need to be repeated.

Well obviously it did because it happened more than once, but never for the same reason.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Those top child development and psychological experts are quite divided on the issue..

So now you accept that a parent could have done the research into parenting and come away with the view that the odd spank is ok? So it's not a case of a parent not bothering to inform themselves or educate themselves in parenting techniques?

gargleblaster wrote: »

Perhaps parents really are trying every tactic that they can find as an alternative to causing physical pain in order to educate their kids.

Discipline, not educate. You educate them by telling them why they got a spank.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I would think using pain as a learning tool would be even less effective.

A discipline tool, not a learning tool. It's not even about inflicting physical pain IMO, more about the shock and awe aspect.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Now I'm wondering though - what about carers working with the elderly in convalescent homes? Would it be acceptable for the staff to swat them for not cooperating? My understanding is that it's considered abusive and isn't tolerated (or it isn't supposed to be, at least).

An elederly person in a home can be moved to a different home, or kicked out for a period of time. You don't/can't expel your small child from your home. Then again it's another pointless comparison.

gargleblaster

prinz wrote: »

Well obviously it did because it happened more than once, but never for the same reason.

That was the point I was trying to make, yes.

So now you accept that a parent could have done the research into parenting and come away with the view that the odd spank is ok? So it's not a case of a parent not bothering to inform themselves or educate themselves in parenting techniques?

Sure, if they're of the mindset that as long as they're not damaging their children to a "significant" degree, that it is acceptable to them, then yes. Most deny even that or at least like to ignore it.

A discipline tool, not a learning tool. It's not even about inflicting physical pain IMO, more about the shock and awe aspect.

If that was the case then spanking wouldn't be necessary. Loud noises can shock and awe. Unfamiliar noises can shock and awe. We're not discussing inflicting shock and awe.

An elederly person in a home can be moved to a different home, or kicked out for a period of time. You don't/can't expel your small child from your home. Then again it's another pointless comparison.

You can't just transfer an elderly resident out when they refuse to eat or refuse to cooperate in the bath. You also can't just kick them out. They won't magically become cooperative because they're in a different nursing home, and usually their own children don't want to deal with the issues of caring for them which is why they ended up in a nursing home to begin with.


It isn't a pointless comparison, either. Nor was the one with dealing with adults or pets.

The comparison is about hitting. It is deemed unacceptable to hit other people, unless those people are your children. Some people don't understand this apparent disconnect in logic and are seeking to understand why it is acceptable to some to hit that one specific group of people but no other. That's the point of attempting to discuss analogous situations and find out why it's different for everyone but children.

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

Sure, if they're of the mindset that as long as they're not damaging their children to a "significant" degree is acceptable, then yes. Most deny even that or at least like to ignore it..

Playing semantics.

gargleblaster wrote: »

If that was the case then spanking wouldn't be necessary. Loud noises can shock and awe. Unfamiliar noises can shock and awe. We're not discussing inflicting shock and awe.

Yes they can which is why I specifically mentioned raising your voice earlier in the thread in a case of a kid reaching for a hot oven top for example. The sheer change in volume and sharpness of a loud shout NO! would scare them into stopping. However there are those who argue that you shouldn't ever raise your voice to a child. So round and round in circles we go. We're not really discussing inflicting pain as an educational tool either.

gargleblaster wrote: »

The comparison is about hitting. It is deemed unacceptable to hit other people, unless those people are your children. Some people don't understand this apparent disconnect in logic and are seeking to understand why it is acceptable to some to hit that one specific group of people but no other. That's the point of attempting to discuss analogous situations and find out why it's different for everyone but children.

We employ a police force and armed forces to do the "hitting" in wider society. The legitimate use of force? Ever heard of it? There is no disconnect in logic whatsoever. You may as well ask why you can 'ground' your child, but ever tried 'grounding' a stranger? Oh wait, isn't that what prisons are for essentially? Ever tried putting an adult on the naughty step? I mean same rules should apply no?

pragmatic1

gargleblaster wrote: »

And I love how despite the fact that it doesn't do any "significant" damage isn't being contested by anyone, that is still the most common argument used to defend the practice. Just because any damage may not be "significant" that does not mean it's the best thing to do.

I agree. I wasnt physically abused or anything but I really resented and didnt like my father for a number of years due to getting hammered.

Greentopia

prinz wrote: »

There is a big difference between an authoritarian style of parenting (which I would call a parent who frequently uses physical force as a disciplining technique) and authoritative (which I would call a parent who gives the kid a lot of lee-way but at the same time isn't afraid to show the kid who is in charge if they step way out of line - with the odd spank when all attempts at resolving a very serious issue by other means have failed)

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-style.htm

Authoritative works far better than Indulgent parenting, and I've seen plenty of cases of parents indulging terrible behaviour rather than bring the kid back to reality with a sore backside.

My parents, while they never spanked or hit me in any way would not have been indulgent parents by any means.
They would more accurately be called authoritative as you describe in that they didn't allow me to get away with bad behaviour and disciplined me if I did behave badly but they always used methods of punishment that didn't involve laying a hand on me such as grounding me or taking away games, pocket money etc.

That was the only methods they used to "bring me back down to earth".
I had a good relationship with them generally too and I always maintained I would do likewise if I ever had kids-that I would never smack or spank them as I think it could break the bond of trust between parent and child, but as I'll never have kids that's not going to happen anyway.

prinz wrote: »

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/spank.htm

This is what it says about the author of that book that's discussed in your link according to wiki:

"Rosemond is known for his old-fashioned, Bible-based parenting philosophy and approach."

Bible based. Which straight away writes him off as a credible source IMO.

prinz

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I agree. I wasnt physically abused or anything but I really resented and didnt like my father for a number of years due to getting hammered.

What's that you said earlier on this thread..

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Got hammered, belts and all. Didnt teach me a single thing. Doesnt work and is a bit twisted.

Eh, using a belt to beat a child IS physical abuse. This is where the entire issue lies on this thread, people thinking that a quick slap on the arse for the shock more than the pain is the same as getting black eyes, being beaten with a belt etc.