Spanking.....

[Dave-W]

Like what>

Like how not to cry no matter how much pain you are in.

That was considered by my dad to be a very important lesson.

 

[Cernunnos]

Pain is a poor motivator. Inevitably when pain is used, the "victim" will behave in whatever way avoids pain. It teaches children to lie to avoid punishment, it teaches Guantanamo Bay detainees to confess anything so the CIA will turn off the Justin Bieber. No . . . but seriously. .. when pain (avoidance) is the central tool for enforcing behavior, it doesn't teach moral reasoning.

By contrast, in the Peaceful Attachment Parenting model, reasoning is always taught. "It is bad to do X because Y, here are the logical consequences of doing X, I love you (my child) so I don't want Y for you. Do you want Y? A sure way to avoid Y is to not do X" basically, it looks like that. You reason with the child. Building reasoning skills can begin at an incredibly early age. I was able to take my 2.5 year old daughter to fancy restaurants & she behaved flawlessly, because she understood that we could only go to such places if she behaved appropriately in them. Going to the playground and playing with other children is contingent on playing well with others, not bullying and being safe. Going fun places and doing fun things is contingent on behavior appropriate for the venue. The contrast is, if behavior doesn't improve with reasoning, one might need to ask customer service to put back your groceries as you will need to leave the store immediately (where-after the child doesn't get to come along on grocery trips for a period of time, until they earn back that trust). Trust is an element of this concept, good behavior earns trust/ bad behavior breaks trust. . . the end result builds the child's self esteem and moral character, not out of fear of punishment but a desire to build and maintain the trust that earns them far more privilege and freedom than children raised in the punishment-based models ever know.

P.S. I was spanked and not abused, I don't support spanking because I have seen the efficacy of a non-violent model and am self-aware enough to admit that the punishment avoidance model I was raised with yielded the very character issue I have spoken of. . . when I sin, it is because I have found a way not to be caught in it & admittedly my own character is not as good as the character I see in my children raised in this non-violent way. I'm not saying I am the most awful sinner, just that when I do fail to do what is right, it is most often because I was raised to avoid being caught rather than raised to reason out why the right thing is right.

 

[ValleyGal]

Like how not to cry no matter how much pain you are in.

That was considered by my dad to be a very important lesson.

Oh, that works. Stop unwanted crying by hitting. I hate to say the obvious, but that only causes more crying (in the moment) and created emotionally unintelligent children. Shame on your dad. Any parents reading this needs to know that emotional intelligence is one of the key factors in adult success - and spanking it out of your children is only setting them up for unhealthy personal and work relationships.

 

[Dave-W]

I hate to say the obvious, but that only causes more crying (in the moment)

Indeed, but that was disciplined as well and eventually you can get thru it without even crying out.

and created emotionally unintelligent children.

Eh - maybe. In some cases. I am not unfeeling, but do not express it unless I want to. It has given me that freedom. It has also allowed me to remain cool and clear headed in some very stressful situations. I am not sure if that is a result of dad's belt, or my own techno-geek personality. Probably it is a combination.

spanking it out of your children is only setting them up for unhealthy personal and work relationships.

Actually, because of my clear headed approach and being mostly unflappable, I have been sought out in employment situations.

 

[ValleyGal]

There are better ways to teach emotional regulation and restraint. In fact, they have found that children raised with secure attachment are better regulated (able to compartmentalize and also express their emotions appropriately) than those who have been spanked. If the same, or better, results can be achieved without spanking, my question is "why spank>"

Imo, most often spanking happens when a parent is upset with their child for misbehaviour. Two problems. First, the parent is upset (and spanking is just taking it out on the child). Second, misbehaviour is always about the child trying to communicate something with the parent, or testing the limits. It is important to understand what the child is trying to communicate, and if its about testing the limits, then the parent should either reinforce the limits with love or else re-evaluate the limit and set a new one.

Spanking is unnecessary when there is a secure attunement and attachment.

 

[Dave-W]

It is important to understand what the child is trying to communicate,

Yeah - that was never an issue. Young men were to be seldom seen and NEVER heard. Not to speak unless spoken to.

 

[ValleyGal]

Yeah - that was never an issue. Young men were to be seldom seen and NEVER heard. Not to speak unless spoken to.

I know. I was raised in the same era. But that does not make it right.

 

[Mudinyeri]

There are better ways to teach emotional regulation and restraint. In fact, they have found that children raised with secure attachment are better regulated (able to compartmentalize and also express their emotions appropriately) than those who have been spanked.

But who defines what "appropriately" means? Is it "appropriate" to believe that "words hurt" and that you need a "safe place" to hide from "triggers"? Not in my world. But then, I grew up and lived in a very harsh world where such weakness would most likely have led to death or a mental breakdown of some sort.

I was spanked, beaten, abused ... as a result, I am mentally tough. I never saw a single person, when I was in the Army, who was raised with "secure attachment" that was able to compartmentalize adequately.

 

[ValleyGal]

Society decides what is "appropriate" regarding emotional expression. It is not okay for someone to laugh at a funeral, for example. It is also not okay for a private to tantrum on the battlefield. But the Army doesn't spank people into good behaviour.

Hiding from triggers will never happen. They are out there, and we need to learn to cope with them. Hiding from them is not coping with them, or addressing them in a healthy way. Yes, words can and do hurt - often more than a beating. Those who are hurt absolutely do need a safe place to turn in order to heal from those harsh words - and that is to a safe, nurturing primary caregiver to whom the person has a safe attachment, that they can trust to work through the hurt (soothing). If children are soothed by a parent or other caregiver, they learn to soothe themselves.

When life is cruel and you have no safe place or way to learn how to cope with the pains, it will very often lead to anger - risking depression primarily for women and violent outbursts primarily for men. This is unregulated emotion, and the person does not know how to soothe him or herself.

You may be mentally tough, but ask yourself what you are protecting yourself from, what is the need to be tough, what pains are you trying to avoid, what the purpose of "tough" is. I am mentally strong, but by no means am I "tough."

 

[Mudinyeri]

You may be mentally tough, but ask yourself what you are protecting yourself from, what is the need to be tough, what pains are you trying to avoid, what the purpose of "tough" is. I am mentally strong, but by no means am I "tough."

Mental toughness limits (or eliminates) emotional damage from physical, mental and emotional stimuli. Mental toughness, much like physical toughness, is developed over time through small advances. Think of a person you know with tough, calloused hands. Typically, those callouses have been developed over years of work. That does not mean that those hands are incapable of feeling. It means that they are protected from damage that would cause blisters on softer hands.

 

[ValleyGal]

It means they are protected from damage... Exactly. There is a cost to vulnerability, but it is an amazing state to live in. When you feel you have to be protected, you are always living in a heightened state of fear, anxiety, etc. When you can be vulnerable in a safe place (starting with primary caregivers with a secure attachment), all your subsequent attachments will be more secure and more intimate because you will be able to be vulnerable.

 

[Mudinyeri]

When you feel you have to be protected, you are always living in a heightened state of fear, anxiety, etc.

If you're suggesting that mental toughness leaves one in a state of fear and/or anxiety, I think you're wandering around in confusion somewhere at the opposite end of the scale. It is quite the opposite. The mentally tough in my circle of friends and acquaintances fear almost nothing. Anxiety is a foreign concept. Once you've developed the mental toughness to face death (your own and others') and walk away emotionally intact, the bar for fear is set very, very high.

Ironically, people around me (and my similar counterparts) who aren't mentally tough (safe place, positive attachments, etc) are often anxious or frustrated by our ability to be absolutely unaffected by the trivial matters of everyday life. Mentally tough Christians are able to truly cast all of our cares on Him because: A. We have come to a reckoning with our mortality and the trivial nature of this temporal earth and B. We know He cares for us.

 

[ValleyGal]

Google a Ted Talk by Brene Brown on Vulnerability. She has talks on shame, blame, etc as well, so make sure the one you look up is on vulnerability. You will learn what "mental toughness" really is - a defense mechanism to keep the vulnerable side of you protected. It comes from a very wounded place where you likely could not trust anyone to share your innermost wounds with. Vulnerability is not the weak place you think it is.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Google a Ted Talk by Brene Brown on Vulnerability. She has talks on shame, blame, etc as well, so make sure the one you look up is on vulnerability. You will learn what "mental toughness" really is - a defense mechanism to keep the vulnerable side of you protected. It comes from a very wounded place where you likely could not trust anyone to share your innermost wounds with. Vulnerability is not the weak place you think it is.

Analogies are flawed but let's use one anyway. Think of two medieval villages. Marauders are a known threat - a fact of life. One village leaves itself vulnerable - no walls, no watchmen, no weapons. The other village is surrounded by high, thick walls, has vigilant watchmen on duty at all times and is well-armed and ready to defend itself.

Which village will likely fare better against the marauders? Because the one village has defenses in place, does that mean that they cannot still function in a trusting manner with those inside the defenses?

Defense mechanisms are necessary in real life. Those who have not developed defense mechanisms walk around vulnerable and are, likely, the ones who need trigger warnings and safe places (defense mechanisms developed and maintained by others). Unfortunately, in my experience, people with defense mechanisms of their own seem to be in shorter supply every day. Helicopter parents and Dr. Spock zealots have created generations of adults nearly incapable of operating in a society lacking emotional childproof caps.

 

[ValleyGal]

Mud, there has to be room for emotional intelligence. We have a built-in mechanism for personal safety. As for the village, if you live in a dangerous end of town, you need to take extra safety precautions to keep your home safe, but if you live in a safe end of town, you know you can trust your neighbours to watch out for each other. The goal is to get children to the safe end of town in their families, not the village where there are marauders.

We are talking in this thread about parents spanking their children. Spanking puts the children vulnerable to the spankers (marauders) in an unsafe way. If parents are the "safe neighbourhood" they know they can count on their parents to keep them safe. The rest of the world may very well be unsafe, and our children will have their built-in defense mechanisms to keep them safe, but why live with defense mechanisms in an unsafe home when you can live in a "relaxed state" (not in the fight, flight, freeze, flock or submit) state with safe parents.

It is important to teach children to live in the relaxed state rather than the emotionally aroused state where the world is not safe - not even home. A home with spanking leads to an insecure or disorganized attachment - meaning the person who is supposed to be safe is also the person who hurts you and you need to be afraid of. Remember, we are talking about young children whose brains are not formed, so they do not think the way we do.

Do not raise your children to live in fear - especially fear of you.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Do not raise your children to live in fear - especially fear of you.

I can definitely agree with this, but deluding your children into believing that there are inherently safe places in this world (or that they can reasonably expect safety) is just as damaging.

 

[ValleyGal]

It is not deluding your children to raise them knowing that you are a safe place in this world. If you are safe, then they will more likely grow up being able to discern what is safe and what is not safe.

 

[Mudinyeri]

It is not deluding your children to raise them knowing that you are a safe place in this world. If you are safe, then they will more likely grow up being able to discern what is safe and what is not safe.

Now, you're suggesting that we teach children that people are places?

 

[ValleyGal]

Parents can be a safe place - in their presence in their arms, in their home. It does not matter if they are in the living room at home or in the washroom at the mall or the middle of a grocery aisle.

 

[Questioning Brother]

"Normal" spanking (open hand to the buttocks and limited number) is not considered abuse in most states. The teacher reporting also varies with age, generally with older ones like teenagers being spanked leaning more toward abuse. Now use of objects, such as belts or paddles, is generally considered at best a gray area (again depending on location and number of strikes), but frowned upon.

Personally, I did spank my kids when the were younger, but only for offenses that required immediate remedy, such as not coming to us when we called out as they were running into the street as a toddler. I can count own my hands the number of times we had to resort to spanking as my, now late teenage, kids grew up. They are both respectful, good kids.