Spanking your kids yes or no?

Alehmer

I say no just because I don't think it's particularly effective, especially in the long term. My mom tried it with me, seemingly to no avail, and learned that the corner produced much better results.

With my own son I haven't done any spanking very consciously because:

1 - I don't want him to think that hitting when your angry is the right reaction

2 - I am a Zen Buddhist, and don't advocate any non-recreational violence (though recreational violence is so much fun!)

3 - I want him to understand why what he did was wrong and why he's getting punished very clearly. Plus a slow, distinct, look-me-in-the-eye-till-you-understand conversation is much more grueling to the 5 year old psyche than having a sore butt for a few minutes.

4 - Anger begets anger, violence begets violence, and I want to lead by example.

5 - It's worked really well so far. Yes, having an only child makes things much easier without a doubt, but I don't think I've actually had to dole out a real punishment in months.

I am quite strict, and push my son to be very independent. I don't think not spanking means not disciplining at all, and in fact I see spanking as the easy way out. My Kindergartner is exceptionally well behaved and a joy to be around, and I personally think (hope!) it has a lot to do with my strict but calm parenting style.

That said, I'm not going to judge anyone else unless they are being truly abusive. No sentence that started with, "Can I give you some parenting advice?" has ever ended with anything but anger and resentment. (Tell me as a parent just reading that sentence didn't raise your hackles!)

fitfan11

Spank. Nothing wrong with good order and discipline.

vim_n_vigor

I vote no. If spanking worked, you'd only have to do it once (quoting Dr. Phil here).

Well, if only having to do it once is the measure of it working, time-out should only have to be used one time, or saying no only one time.....

EddieHaskell97

Being that my kids are three and five years old, I will only do it if they put their lives in danger doing something they know they're not supposed to do. IE, cross/go into the street without an adult holding their hands, trying to stick a knife in an electrical outlet, etc...

Everything else is a timeout on the stairs, or if it's really bad being sent up to their rooms.

paperpudding

I do not agree. I love my son with all of my heart. I live by the bible it encourages to not spare the rod.

Will you go all the way and stone him to death if he's gay?

I think your post is a good example of a straw man argument.

Sure, it goes a little far, but "living by the bible" doesn't always equate to great parenting.

Nobody said it did.
Even the poster who said she lives by the bible did not say that.

Your post went way too far and was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion.

beachlover317

I don't think spanking a child is the answer. I'm always fascinated by the parents that say - "I never spank in anger". What message does that send a child? I'm going to hit you now that I'm not angry.

Here's a thought for you: As an adult, if you do something wrong at work - can your boss clock you and then move on? Can your neighbor come over and hit you for letting your dog tear up his flower bed?

There is no logic in looking at children as though they are not people, too.

There is no logic in this argument - sure, my boss or my neighbour wouldn't hit me if I was doing something wrong - but they are not responsible for raising me so that is irrelevant.
They also wouldn't enforce my bed time or supervise my TV watching or put me in time out or dock my pocket money or any other thing that parents appropriately do to their children.

I know some parents have decided not to use smacking and that's fine by me.

However, I think smacking, used sparingly, can be an appropriate discipline tool. It is not the only tool and it does have to be used in moderation.

Obviously belting, whipping etc are not ok - but light smacking, used sparingly, is not that at all.

I agree with posters that saying light smacking is abuse is trivialising to all those children who were really abused.

My point was that we treat others in our world with respect by not resorting to physical means. Why is a child any different?

SonicDeathMonkey80

I do not agree. I love my son with all of my heart. I live by the bible it encourages to not spare the rod.

Will you go all the way and stone him to death if he's gay?

I think your post is a good example of a straw man argument.

Sure, it goes a little far, but "living by the bible" doesn't always equate to great parenting.

Nobody said it did.
Even the poster who said she lives by the bible did not say that.

Your post went way too far and was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion.

Thank you, thread sheriff.

dakotababy

So, ask yourself how did you turn out?? . Spanking a child when they need correction is a tool, you don't beat them. I vote with your boyfriend.

I dont think your own impression of yourself is credible. I once had a friend in high school who thought it was ok to smoke pot while she was pregnant (because her mom did it with her and "she turned out fine").

neandermagnon

good discipline is not about whether you hit your kids or not.

it is about whether you lay down clear boundaries and consistently give out negative consequences for overstepping them.

hitting a kid does not automatically make them behave. some of the worst behaved kids I've known, three of whom I actually banned from my house because they were so naughty, were regularly hit by their parents. But there was no consistency. They'd play up and play up and play up until their parent(s) snapped and hit them. They learned to misbehave as much as they could get away with, and just avoid getting caught, or get out of the way if their mother was in a bad mood. Hitting kids does not magically make them behave. Clear boundaries and consistently applied consequences does.

I don't hit my kids because I don't see any point to it. They have other consequences, what i make sure is if they break a rule, they get a consequence. I very rarely have to give out actual consequences, because my kids know that if they don't comply, then the consequence will happen. I just warn them once, and they comply. Giving out empty threats, or giving too many chances (e.g. several warnings before a consequence) results in kids trying to get away with as much misbehaviour as they can. Hitting can be a consequence, but other consequences work just as well. My kids have other consequences like the naughty corner, having toys taken away for a period of time, loss of privileges, that kind of thing. I don't see the need to hit them at all.

And some punishments I use I think are quite a lot harsher than hitting them, and they tend to last longer, e.g. taking away their tablet computer for a day lasts much longer than getting hit... haven't actually had to do that, just the threat of it = compliance because they know that I *will* carry this out.... (note: for little kids, stick to immediate consequences because they have to have sufficient maturity to associate the punishment with what they did, little kids don't have that so immediate punishments like going to the naughty corner or having a toy removed immediately for a short time are much better, but once they can understand "I don't have _____ today because I did ____ yesterday" then more long term punishments are very effective, as long as they're done consistently and the boundaries are clear.)

It's not the punishment itself that disciplines the child, it's the process of laying down clear boundaries and consistently enforcing them.

And additionally, all this has to be within the context of a stable parent-child relationship where kids' emotional needs are being met, i.e. parents are giving them time, attention, having fun with them, giving them a chance to talk through problems, helping them with homework etc... misbehaviour can sometimes be through a lack of those things, rather than a lack of discipline.

note: I know that some neurological issues, e.g autistic spectrum disorder, can completely change the game when it comes to discipline, so some of the above may not apply... but the point about there being other effective ways to manage kids behaviour without hitting them still applies.

I would hope that you aren't implying that those on the Autism spectrum would benefit from corporal punishment. You may want to make that a bit more clear

why do people on the internet forums choose to interpret things in the worst possible way? I've highlighted the sentence in my post where I made it clear that I wasn't implying what you managed to read into my post.

I mentioned conditions like ASD because I made a point in my post that setting clear boundaries + consistent consequences results in well behaved kids.... that may not be the case if kids have certain neurological issues, i.e the parents can be doing everything right and the kid can still behave in ways that others would consider bad behaviour. Parents of kids with ASD and similar get sick of people questioning their parenting skills when they're generally doing a fantastic job, so I added a disclaimer to avoid accidentally doing that.

dayone987

I believe that there is no good reason ever to hit any child. If the only way you can control your child is by violence or your first reaction is to ht your child when they have done something wrong, it means you have lost control.

Spanking has shown to have numerous negative long term effects.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201202/how-spanking-harms-the-brain

Spanking gets quick results, but it doesn't reduce the undesired behavior. In addition to detrimental physiological effects, it may also inflict lasting emotional damage that inhibits the learning process. Physical punishment undermines trust between parent and child and breeds hostility toward authority figures."

"According to the report, spanking may reduce the brain's grey matter, the connective tissue between brain cells. Grey matter is an integral part of the central nervous system and influences intelligence testing and learning abilities. It includes areas of the brain involved in sensory perception, speech, muscular control, emotions and memory."

To the people that like to quote the bible as an excuse for their poor parenting skills, please think of a rod that a shepherd would use for his sheep (an ongoing metaphor in Christianity).The rod is used to guide the sheep, not to beat them.

I can't believe that so many people think that it is ok commit act of violence towards children.

paperpudding

I don't think spanking a child is the answer. I'm always fascinated by the parents that say - "I never spank in anger". What message does that send a child? I'm going to hit you now that I'm not angry.

Here's a thought for you: As an adult, if you do something wrong at work - can your boss clock you and then move on? Can your neighbor come over and hit you for letting your dog tear up his flower bed?

There is no logic in looking at children as though they are not people, too.

There is no logic in this argument - sure, my boss or my neighbour wouldn't hit me if I was doing something wrong - but they are not responsible for raising me so that is irrelevant.
They also wouldn't enforce my bed time or supervise my TV watching or put me in time out or dock my pocket money or any other thing that parents appropriately do to their children.

I know some parents have decided not to use smacking and that's fine by me.

However, I think smacking, used sparingly, can be an appropriate discipline tool. It is not the only tool and it does have to be used in moderation.

Obviously belting, whipping etc are not ok - but light smacking, used sparingly, is not that at all.

I agree with posters that saying light smacking is abuse is trivialising to all those children who were really abused.

My point was that we treat others in our world with respect by not resorting to physical means. Why is a child any different?

I don't see how your example proves your point though - the comparison to your neighbour or your boss doesn't really work.

biggsterjackster

Of course no. In my home country it is illegal to spank or hit children and it is a good law.

TripleJ3

I run a daycare and I can always tell which kids are spanked. The ones that hit and bite kids are always the ones whose parents tell me that I can just hit/bite their kid back like they do. Well......if that worked why does your kid continuously still hit/bite to deal with frustration?

To me it's not about spanking kids. It's about lack of parenting and not enough responsibility. I hear people all the time say how they can't spank their kid so they do nothing. Well you could get up off your a** and do something I like to call "parenting". I take my kid out of the situation and in as few words as possible ( no long tuned out lectures) that was wrong, why, and here is what you do next time.

My daughters are not spanked, are well behaved and rarely do they ever get into any trouble. They also know I don't make idle threats. If I say they won't be able to do something if they don't finish a chore or stop doing "fill in the blank" they know I mean it and will follow through.

My daughters also have responsibilities. I also don't leave it up to school to teach them everything I want them to know. I want them to know that it still is a privilege to go to school, that they don't get to just sit and watch tv, play video games and have no expectations. Back when my Grandma was a kid there wasn't time to get into a lot of trouble. You had hard chores to do everyday or you didn't eat. Times are obviously different now but I use that as motivation to keep them busy and have responsibilities.

I'm not perfect and neither are my kids but I do my job as a parent and never think or blame society or schools for their behavior. While those things will influence them in some way, it all starts at home with the education they receive here and what they learn from my actions and how I live and handle things.

19TaraLynn84

I just love how the non-spanking advocates refer to it as "hitting". I've always found that funny. A swat on the behind is not going to damage any child. What damages children is having a parent who gets angry at them and then takes that anger out on the their backside. Or wherever the strikes land. That would've messed me up, too. That's why many people say spanking shouldn't be done in anger.

And as for the "spanked kids are bullies"..........lol! Alrighty then! Everybody wants to say that spanking as punishment is causing children to be violent. Anybody watched "children's" cartoons lately? Or seen what kind of video games children are allowed to play. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.



ETA: If spanking lowers IQ, then I'm wondering how I graduated valedictorian of my class. As did my cousin, who was also spanked. And my sister graduated with honors. Yep, all of us got spanked. I do remember many, many of my teachers approaching my parents in public and telling them how much they appreciated how well-behaved we were. But I'm sure that should be discounted and only those with bad experiences should be used.

beachlover317

I don't think spanking a child is the answer. I'm always fascinated by the parents that say - "I never spank in anger". What message does that send a child? I'm going to hit you now that I'm not angry.

Here's a thought for you: As an adult, if you do something wrong at work - can your boss clock you and then move on? Can your neighbor come over and hit you for letting your dog tear up his flower bed?

There is no logic in looking at children as though they are not people, too.

There is no logic in this argument - sure, my boss or my neighbour wouldn't hit me if I was doing something wrong - but they are not responsible for raising me so that is irrelevant.
They also wouldn't enforce my bed time or supervise my TV watching or put me in time out or dock my pocket money or any other thing that parents appropriately do to their children.

I know some parents have decided not to use smacking and that's fine by me.

However, I think smacking, used sparingly, can be an appropriate discipline tool. It is not the only tool and it does have to be used in moderation.

Obviously belting, whipping etc are not ok - but light smacking, used sparingly, is not that at all.

I agree with posters that saying light smacking is abuse is trivialising to all those children who were really abused.

My point was that we treat others in our world with respect by not resorting to physical means. Why is a child any different?

I don't see how your example proves your point though - the comparison to your neighbour or your boss doesn't really work.

Of course it does. A person is a person - regardless of their age or how they are related to you. Your child will still be your child when they are 10, 15, 20, 45. Are you going to continue to spank them at these ages because they are "your responsibility to raise"? I doubt it.

Alehmer

To any who say that thing's "Were never like this when we were kids and spankings were common. Kids had respect!"

Let me quote Socrates:

The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise. …

Children began to be the tyrants, not the slaves, of their households. They no longer rose from their seats when an elder entered the room; they contradicted their parents, chattered before company, gobbled up the dainties at table, and committed various offences against Hellenic tastes, such as crossing their legs. They tyrannised over the paidagogoi and schoolmasters.

That's someone from 400BC complaining about 'the kids these days have no respect'. The world hasn't changed all that much, but your perspective on the world has.

k8blujay2

(in response to spankings lowers IQ) Hmm... then I could have been a genius if my parents didn't spank me...

In any regard, I don't use it very often at all... but it's not off the table. But I am never angry when my child does something unacceptible, so I know I wouldn't take it too far.... however, it's used very sparingly (as in they do something completely dangerous and not for something inane like spilling milk) in our house, but I don't usually need to because taking something away for a time works much better for my little one.


edited for clarification.

cloud2011

blank

Derpes

Never EVER a reason to hit a child ... it's lazy parenting and abusive. Whether they survive or not is not the point.

We worry about what a child will become tomorrow, yet we forget that he is someone today. ~Stacia Tauscher

I like this a LOT. :flowerforyou:

I do not agree. I love my son with all of my heart. I live by the bible it encourages to not spare the rod. I do not agree with beating a child but a spank on the butt when out of line is not abuse and it's not lazy parenting. if it was abuse, dhs would arrest people who spanked their children. in fact, dhs says as long as there are no bruises, spanking is not abuse in the state I live in. Your opinion is your opinion, but please do not consider a parent lazy for spanking. I've tried those "time outs" take a way game time and it did not work. I spanked my son's butt for something he did over 3 months ago and he hasn't had another spanking yet. I spank him b/c i love him and I dont' want to see him hurt (he ran in the street and the word "No" didn't work) i think the lazy parents are the ones who do nothing when their children are acting out and their chidren curse them out and hit them. I've never seen that with a child who was spanked!!

The rod, as many other things in the bible, it more of a metaphor than something to be interpreted literally.

If you live by the Bible, it is important to examine it through the proper historical and cultural contexts.

In Biblical terms, the rod could refer to using authority, not a stick.

mamma_nee

As a child I was spanked and beat at , My younger brother got it bad , He was caught smoking a cigaret at the age of 12 and my father had him kneel on raw chick peas for 20 minutes !! That is abuse ! and I think he should have been behind bars and by the way My dad was a smoker himself ! I finally stood up to him when he was about to beat on my younger sister - before he even raised his hand up - I said I wouldn`t do that if I were you - We are in AMERICA! and if we report it to our school ,You will be arrested ! He turned around and walked out of our room mumbling to himself. He could get away with alot in Italy but he was afraid of the American laws. In the schools in Italy if you forgot your homework you got the paddle on your hands ! and if you went home to complain to your parents You would get paddled some more !

Nothing wrong with a spank when it is warranted but beating a child is unacceptable.

I have 3 boys and have only had to spank once . Taking away their favorite game or toy worked for them but I know it does not work for all kids.

ladymiseryali

Spanking did nothing but make me fear my mother and father. It also just made me be more sneaky when it came to behavior that MAY result in said spanking. In other words, it taught me NOTHING. I don't plan on spanking my kids and I consider it a lazy way of dealing with an unruly child. I have also seen my relatives take it too far, like into child abuse territory. So anything that can go that far is a no-go for me. I've watched many episodes of Super Nanny and prefer her method of discipline.

paperpudding

I believe that there is no good reason ever to hit any child. If the only way you can control your child is by violence or your first reaction is to ht your child when they have done something wrong, it means you have lost control.

Spanking has shown to have numerous negative long term effects.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201202/how-spanking-harms-the-brain

Spanking gets quick results, but it doesn't reduce the undesired behavior. In addition to detrimental physiological effects, it may also inflict lasting emotional damage that inhibits the learning process. Physical punishment undermines trust between parent and child and breeds hostility toward authority figures."

"According to the report, spanking may reduce the brain's grey matter, the connective tissue between brain cells. Grey matter is an integral part of the central nervous system and influences intelligence testing and learning abilities. It includes areas of the brain involved in sensory perception, speech, muscular control, emotions and memory."

To the people that like to quote the bible as an excuse for their poor parenting skills, please think of a rod that a shepherd would use for his sheep (an ongoing metaphor in Christianity).The rod is used to guide the sheep, not to beat them.

I can't believe that so many people think that it is ok commit act of violence towards children.

Yet there are many children and adults who were smacked in moderation as children who are not hostile to authority and do not have trust issues.

Just because people use smacking does not mean it is the only way they can control their children or it is their first resort - any more than parents who use time out, or removing TV privileges or any other discipline tool use that as their only way or as their first resort.

I have no issue with posters who have chosen not to smack - but some of the melodramatic posts about abuse and laziness are just ridiculous.

dayone987

I just love how the non-spanking advocates refer to it as "hitting". I've always found that funny. A swat on the behind is not going to damage any child. What damages children is having a parent who gets angry at them and then takes that anger out on the their backside. Or wherever the strikes land. That would've messed me up, too. That's why many people say spanking shouldn't be done in anger.

And as for the "spanked kids are bullies"..........lol! Alrighty then! Everybody wants to say that spanking as punishment is causing children to be violent. Anybody watched "children's" cartoons lately? Or seen what kind of video games children are allowed to play. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

I just love how spanking advocates say that taking your hand and moving it with force and impact towards a child's body isn't called hitting.

Please read up on studies on effects of spanking before you claim no harm.

Look up how Sweden implemented a law against spanking in 1979 without the country developing into a nation of violent, disrespectful criminals.

Scott2ndGradeTeacher

I think kids need discipline with appropriate consequences. Spanking is a possible option for extreme offenses, but should only be used as a last resort and not the first rattle out of the box. If it used, it should be meted out unemotionally and not in the heat of the moment.

See also: discipline vs. somebody losing their mind at Wal-Mart and whomping their kid

k8blujay2

I just love how the non-spanking advocates refer to it as "hitting". I've always found that funny. A swat on the behind is not going to damage any child. What damages children is having a parent who gets angry at them and then takes that anger out on the their backside. Or wherever the strikes land. That would've messed me up, too. That's why many people say spanking shouldn't be done in anger.

And as for the "spanked kids are bullies"..........lol! Alrighty then! Everybody wants to say that spanking as punishment is causing children to be violent. Anybody watched "children's" cartoons lately? Or seen what kind of video games children are allowed to play. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

I just love how spanking advocates say that taking your hand and moving it with force and impact towards a child's body isn't called hitting.

Please read up on studies on effects of spanking before you claim no harm.

Look up how Sweden implemented a law against spanking in 1979 without the country developing into a nation of violent, disrespectful criminals.

Sweden is also raising a bunch of kids that do not respect authority and are becoming a nation of narcessitic and selfish brats... but that goes deeper than not spanking their kids.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/fears-brat-ocracy-child-centred-sweden-032211547.html

paperpudding

I don't think spanking a child is the answer. I'm always fascinated by the parents that say - "I never spank in anger". What message does that send a child? I'm going to hit you now that I'm not angry.

Here's a thought for you: As an adult, if you do something wrong at work - can your boss clock you and then move on? Can your neighbor come over and hit you for letting your dog tear up his flower bed?

There is no logic in looking at children as though they are not people, too.

There is no logic in this argument - sure, my boss or my neighbour wouldn't hit me if I was doing something wrong - but they are not responsible for raising me so that is irrelevant.
They also wouldn't enforce my bed time or supervise my TV watching or put me in time out or dock my pocket money or any other thing that parents appropriately do to their children.

I know some parents have decided not to use smacking and that's fine by me.

However, I think smacking, used sparingly, can be an appropriate discipline tool. It is not the only tool and it does have to be used in moderation.

Obviously belting, whipping etc are not ok - but light smacking, used sparingly, is not that at all.

I agree with posters that saying light smacking is abuse is trivialising to all those children who were really abused.

My point was that we treat others in our world with respect by not resorting to physical means. Why is a child any different?

I don't see how your example proves your point though - the comparison to your neighbour or your boss doesn't really work.

Of course it does. A person is a person - regardless of their age or how they are related to you. Your child will still be your child when they are 10, 15, 20, 45. Are you going to continue to spank them at these ages because they are "your responsibility to raise"? I doubt it.

Of course I am not - that is just silly.
Once they are 20 or 45, they are not my responsibility to raise, they are grown adults by then.

By 10 or 15 most parents have moved on to other tools - discipline is an evolving thing.
Just like I would not use time out for a 15 year old either.

Snow3y

Spanking? that's just wrong.

Hitting them for discipline? Yes.

PghPensFan69

ladymiseryali

And as for the "spanked kids are bullies"..........lol! Alrighty then! Everybody wants to say that spanking as punishment is causing children to be violent. Anybody watched "children's" cartoons lately? Or seen what kind of video games children are allowed to play. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

And here we go with the "it's TV and VideoGames' fault!" argument........You should look up the episode of "Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t" where they take a child who plays violent videogames and they have him shoot a REAL gun. Guess what? The child gets really upset after shooting the real gun and cries. In other words, violent videogames DO NOT make children violent. I used to watch pretty violent cartoons as a child. NEVER did I feel the need to go hurt another child because of it. In fact, I'm the least violent person I know and I also love playing videogames where I have to use magic to blow things up.

TripleJ3

I don't think spanking a child is the answer. I'm always fascinated by the parents that say - "I never spank in anger". What message does that send a child? I'm going to hit you now that I'm not angry.

Here's a thought for you: As an adult, if you do something wrong at work - can your boss clock you and then move on? Can your neighbor come over and hit you for letting your dog tear up his flower bed?

There is no logic in looking at children as though they are not people, too.

There is no logic in this argument - sure, my boss or my neighbour wouldn't hit me if I was doing something wrong - but they are not responsible for raising me so that is irrelevant.
They also wouldn't enforce my bed time or supervise my TV watching or put me in time out or dock my pocket money or any other thing that parents appropriately do to their children.

I know some parents have decided not to use smacking and that's fine by me.

However, I think smacking, used sparingly, can be an appropriate discipline tool. It is not the only tool and it does have to be used in moderation.

Obviously belting, whipping etc are not ok - but light smacking, used sparingly, is not that at all.

I agree with posters that saying light smacking is abuse is trivialising to all those children who were really abused.

My point was that we treat others in our world with respect by not resorting to physical means. Why is a child any different?

I don't see how your example proves your point though - the comparison to your neighbour or your boss doesn't really work.

Yes it is relevant. Your job as a parent is to teach your children how to behave and handle a situation. You hit them when they do something wrong. They think, when someone does something I don't like, I hit them. So that's what kids do then parents are shocked when their kid hits another kid. Then the parent spanks their kid and says "you don't hit".

Well that cleared it up. You hit me because I did something wrong but it's wrong to hit people.

I teach my daughters it's wrong and not acceptable to hit someone you love or to let them hit you, inspired by the situation I grew up in. I don't want them to ever think it's ok and acceptable for someone who says they love you to also hit you and say " I do this because I love you"