Spanking your kids yes or no?

My reply is first hand experience. I was spanked as a kid, by parents, grand parents, uncle and even a neighbor a few times. And yes, good old swats at school 4 or 5 times that I remember. Why, because I was a bad little kid and needed it. I am really glad the rod was not spared on me, and I thank them all for everyone I got. Not all kids can be reached with words and time-outs and other forms of non aggressive types of punishment. I turned out just fine and have been successful in life. But without the love from a paddle I could have ended up much different!

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.

Just curious....why do people want "in before the lock"? Why not just say what you have to say? :ohwell: