Smacking Children

[ebia]

... what do you do with children? I couldn't read all the pages of this thread. :o I do know there are parts of the UK that are into heavy spanking/beating (I think Southern Ireland).

Southern Ireland is part of the UK in the same sense that Canada is part of the US.

 

[quatona]

Southern Ireland is part of the UK in the same sense that Canada is part of the US.

And the UK is part of Europe like the US are part of the....ah, forget it.

 

[rosalind110]

I don't have kids, but I can't see a situation where spanking is in order. There are other methods of parenting that don't result in physical violence. I have this crazy idea that raising children takes a lot of patience. And from what I can see too many parents lack this (not accusing anyone here). To be honest, almost everytime I've seen someone spank their child there are better ways they could have dealt with the situation. Maybe I'll change my mind if I ever have kids.

The problem is that children are not adults and do not have the developed powers of reasoning that an adult has. There are times when a child is in the process of an out and out tantrum, that a firm smack on the bottom (I would NEVER hit a child's face because you can do serious damage that way) is the only thing that snaps them out of this hysterical state. Personally, in my time, I have seen what I would consider much more harmful methods of 'discipline' in the form of shouting, (sometimes even swearing) putting a child down verbally, and withdrawing love and attention than could ever be caused by the odd smack.

There is also the fact that, if a child learns that he or she can control and manipulate you by exhibiting a certain type of behaviour which he or she knows you cannot handle, then, in many cases, this is what the child will do.

Having said that, I agree with the posters who have said that every child is different and that some children do not need this kind of discipline, while it wouldn't work positively for others. Only the parents of the child concerned can know whayt is right for that child. Also, if you can find an alternative method like the time-out syatem that works so well for many of TV's Supernanny's families, then obviously this should be your first choice.

As for the difference between smacking and abuse, I believe that people who want to harm their children will continue to do so whether or not they are advised not to spank and whether or not there is a law against spanking and there is therefore no comparison between people like this and parents who utilise the odd smack when they feel it is absolutely necessary.

 

[rosalind110]

As a means of behavioral pattern disruption, a spank MAY be acceptable. There are other ways of breaking the pattern though. A prof in developmental psych said that adults are larger than children for a reason, but that reason is not to hit them. When we "smack" (such a disgusting word) our children, we are teaching them that "I am bigger than you and I can make you do what I want you to."

Many people who never spank advocate 'time-outs' and enforce and control them by physically firmly and gently placing the child back in the time out area and beginning the 'time-out' again if he or she leaves it, until such time as the child completes the prescribed time in one go. If you think about this in context you will see when you do this you are still teaching them, "I am bigger than you and I can make you do what I want you to", even though there is no spanking involved.

Further to this, whatever method of discipline a parent chooses to use, surely this part of parenting is all about teaching a child that he or she has to abide by the rules and directives set and taught by his or her adult carers and therefore, in a sense all about teaching a small child that a big person (adult) is in control.

 

[non-religious]

[rosalind110]The problem is that children are not adults and do not have the developed powers of reasoning that an adult has. There are times when a child is in the process of an out and out tantrum, that a firm smack on the bottom (I would NEVER hit a child's face because you can do serious damage that way) is the only thing that snaps them out of this hysterical state. Personally, in my time, I have seen what I would consider much more harmful methods of 'discipline' in the form of shouting, (sometimes even swearing) putting a child down verbally, and withdrawing love and attention than could ever be caused by the odd smack.

There is also the fact that, if a child learns that he or she can control and manipulate you by exhibiting a certain type of behaviour which he or she knows you cannot handle, then, in many cases, this is what the child will do.

Having said that, I agree with the posters who have said that every child is different and that some children do not need this kind of discipline, while it wouldn't work positively for others. Only the parents of the child concerned can know whayt is right for that child. Also, if you can find an alternative method like the time-out syatem that works so well for many of TV's Supernanny's families, then obviously this should be your first choice.

As for the difference between smacking and abuse, I believe that people who want to harm their children will continue to do so whether or not they are advised not to spank and whether or not there is a law against spanking and there is therefore no comparison between people like this and parents who utilise the odd smack when they feel it is absolutely necessary.

Excellent post.....

I absolutely agree with you here.

 

[rosalind110]

Duplicated post - content removed

 

[rosalind110]

That's where bullies come from!


If this is the case, can you please explain why,when spanking is a much less common occurance, there is a much higher instance of bullying on children, violent attacks on teachers, and a general lack of respect for authority in the schools of today?

 

[non-religious]

I would equally add that rules and bounderies are fundamentally important to implement when raising children. How one re-inforces those rules is obviously a different question. My child is a unique individual and both my wife and I are trying our best to raise her to be an upstanding, respectable and responsible young woman. She is ten years old and she knows that I am the parent and she is the child, so there is no "i'm bigger than you and you had better do this" going on in my household. However, I'm not going to be this easily manipulated parent that is too scared to set a rule and see that my daughter abides by it. In my opinion smacking is not necessary, however I'm basing that assumption solely upon my own experience. An experience that is different for every parent

 

[ebia]

The problem is that children are not adults and do not have the developed powers of reasoning that an adult has.

Do you think we don't know this?

There are times when a child is in the process of an out and out tantrum, that a firm smack on the bottom is the only thing that snaps them out of this hysterical state.

Say's who?

Personally, in my time, I have seen what I would consider much more harmful methods of 'discipline' in the form of shouting, (sometimes even swearing) putting a child down verbally, and withdrawing love and attention than could ever be caused by the odd smack.

Abolutely. I don't think anyone on the "anti-smack" side would suggest that a light smack is the worst possible alternative. In fact, if you troll back through this thread you'll find most of us have spoken out against other forms of abuse at some point in the conversation.

There is also the fact that, if a child learns that he or she can control and manipulate you by exhibiting a certain type of behaviour which he or she knows you cannot handle, then, in many cases, this is what the child will do.

No-one is suggesting that you let them manipulate you - this is another straw-man.

Having said that, I agree with the posters who have said that every child is different and that some children do not need this kind of discipline, while it wouldn't work positively for others. Only the parents of the child concerned can know whayt is right for that child.

So I'll ask you because no-one else has answered it: why is it the case that most parents use physical punishment on all their kids or on none? That points to it being dependent entirely on the nature of the parents, not on the nature of the child.

As for the difference between smacking and abuse, I believe that people who want to harm their children will continue to do so whether or not they are advised not to spank and whether or not there is a law against spanking and there is therefore no comparison between people like this and parents who utilise the odd smack when they feel it is absolutely necessary.

Another straw-man, you are attacking something no-one is suggesting.

Many people who never spank advocate 'time-outs' and enforce and control them by physically firmly and gently placing the child back in the time out area and beginning the 'time-out' again if he or she leaves it, until such time as the child completes the prescribed time in one go. If you think about this in context you will see when you do this you are still teaching them, "I am bigger than you and I can make you do what I want you to", even though there is no spanking involved.

Perhaps such a strategy isn't perfect, but it is less imperfect. I doubt anyone here would suggest their strategies are perfect, just better.

Further to this, whatever method of discipline a parent chooses to use, surely this part of parenting is all about teaching a child that he or she has to abide by the rules and directives set and taught by his or her adult carers and therefore, in a sense all about teaching a small child that a big person (adult) is in control.

Not really no. Yes, one has to learn to abide by rules, but so much better to learn right from wrong (part of which is abiding by the rules that society uses to operate effectively). Even children follow rules much more effectively when they understand the purpose behind them, and are much more willing to follow rules where they can't immediately see the reason if they know that rules in general are not arbitrary and enforced with violence but practical and they have to restore the harm caused by breaking them. Blind obedience is for robots, not people.

 

[non-religious]

[rosalind110]
If this is the case, can you please explain why,when spanking is a much less common occurance, there is a much higher instance of bullying on children, violent attacks on teachers, and a general lack of respect for authority in the schools of today?

Ah!! the days of corporal punishment, what fond memories they bring back to me. Getting hit with a ruler and a slipper whilst I was in infant school. The sharp pain and the embarrassment of having to bend over. Yet, when I went back to my class I was a hero and got so much respect

 

[non-religious]

[ebia]
Say's who?

The parent who is raising their child....


And that's the bottom line. We can debate this till the cows come home, but it's not going to affect the way I raise my child (no form of physical punishment) or the way the next person raises theirs. If or when you have children you will raise them the way you want to.

 

[rosalind110]

That seems based on the same emotional tactic that an enemy uses for captured soldiers: dig your own grave. Why do children need to be scared, when they get scared so easily by all that goes on around them?

But, if you believe in the power of the switch and fear, perhaps espoused the Pearls, maybe the following psychological tactics will also be useful in subduing a child:

"
What if they fight back?
Children fight back because they think they have a chance of forestalling the spanking. First make sure the child never gains anything by fleeing. Second, cause the child to understand that he is further hurting himself by resisting. Slow down, stay calm. If you are in a frenzy, the child will respond in kind. If a child flees, don’t chase him. Wait and allow time for the tension to go out of the air. Slowly pursue him, explaining that he cannot win. If it takes a long time, that’s fine. Go to his hiding place and laugh at his frail attempts. Explain that if it takes fourteen days to bring him to justice, he will be brought to justice. Patience. Calm. Dignity. Wait until he calms down in the back of the closet, or under the bed, and as you sit outside, or just beyond him, quietly tell him that you are coming to give him his ten licks, but that since he has fled, he is now going to get one extra lick. Wait several minutes for him to calm down and listen with reason, and ask him how much ten plus one is. “That’s right, eleven. Would you rather have 10 licks or 11?” He answers “10.” Then tell him that it is too late to get just 10, but if he doesn’t come out immediately you will raise it to 12. He must have calmed down for him to make a rational choice. If not, then wait a little longer. Keep this up until you raise the stakes to about twenty licks, explaining to him that when you get to 20 licks you are coming after him. If he is locked in his room, explain that you will unlock the door. There is no escape. Be calm, non-threatening in tone. Just quiet dignity. Think of yourself as a high-ranking government official in charge of negotiations. Know that in the end you will win. It is the quality of the win that counts. You want him to voluntarily surrender. There is no “violence” that way. It is a great victory if you can get him to finally give over and take the few steps toward you. One win like this and you are likely to never have this problem again.
If your negotiation for an unconditional surrender fails, calmly unlock the door and enter the room. While quietly explaining what you are doing, drag him out of the closet or out from under the bed and restrain him until he calms down. Explain your position and then put him in a confining position. And then proceed to spank slowly. When you get to the former number of licks that he would have received, stop and say, “OK that is the ten licks you had coming; I am tired of spanking, but I must give you the other lick that I promised if you did not come to me.” Whap! “There, now that is eleven, but you still did not come, so I told you you would get 12, so here is the twelfth…” And so continue talking him through it so that he knows that he is getting exactly what you promised.
If a kid is hysterical, he will not learn anything, except that you are more powerful. That is a good lesson, but you want more. You want him to come to repentance and take responsibility for every action. He must understand the causes and effects of his actions.
If you raise your voice and run and jerk the child around, you will add to his hysteria, and he will learn nothing. If you give over in any way, or you beg, or you act as if you are emotionally suffering, he wins; you lose, and in the end he loses in the area of character. The child needs you to win with dignity. His soul needs to surrender to a power greater than self. Remember, you are representing all authority to the child, including the authority of God.
How often?
Each child will be different. Some four-year-olds will need five spankings a day, whereas others will need only one a month. Some children hardly ever need a spanking after they are seven or eight; others still need one after they are married. Not that anyone is going to spank him.
You should not spank beyond your fellowship with the child. If you feel that your spanking is excessive, it is because it is not working. If it is not working to produce happy, creative kids, then you are missing one of the other elements we discussed. You have probably forgotten how to relax and enjoy your children. Or perhaps you have failed to train. The bottom line is that if other things are equal, and you give a child a spanking every time he needs it, the time will soon come when he will not need to be spanked so often, and eventually not at all. "

This is from their website, No Greater Joy. How ironic.

I have seen this before and I am glad that no responsible or loving parent would ever consider such an abusive and extreme regime. It still doesn't change my views about a very occasional smack on the bottom however.

 

[ebia]

There are times when a child is in the process of an out and out tantrum, that a firm smack on the bottom is the only thing that snaps them out of this hysterical state.

Say's who?

The parent who is raising their child....

Well, they can say whatever they like but that doesn't make it so. Unless the statement comes from someone with some credibility...

And that's the bottom line. We can debate this till the cows come home, but it's not going to affect the way I raise my child (no form of physical punishment) or the way the next person raises theirs.

Why not? Is no-one in the world open to fresh ideas? Can what is considered acceptable in society not be changed by discussion? Can training in effective parenting not be implemented and supported? Ultimately, can laws not be changed?

If not, why does this forum (or any other) exist - to vent hot air? Are people so irrational that discussion of such an important topic as how to teach children how to behave is a waste of time? If so, the world is toast.

 

[ebia]

I have seen this before and I am glad that no responsible or loving parent would ever consider such an abusive and extreme regime.

I'm sure the author and some of those who follow his advice consider theirselves responsible, loving parents.

But that's not really the point - in its extreamism it highlights many of the fallacies and incorrect thinking shown by the more moderate advocates of spanking.

 

[rosalind110]

Poor example (excuse the pun)... If you're going to use generalisations then at least provide a credible source that can go some way in backing you're claim.

Many generalisations and assumptions have been made on this thread and virtually none of them are backed up with any kind of credible evidence. I actually think that this particular claim is one of the few that can be substantiated. Most studies seem to indicate that, although abuse is far from unknown in middle class families, it is a much more common occurance in lower income families.

 

[ebia]

Many generalisations and assumptions have been made on this thread and virtually none of them are backed up with any kind of credible evidence. I actually think that this particular claim is one of the few that can be substantiated. Most studies seem to indicate that, although abuse is far from unknown in middle class families, it is a much more common occurance in lower income families.

I suspect that you are right, although abuse in lower class families may well be more obvious rather than more common. However, saying something can be substantiated is worthless unless you actually provide the evidence that does. A lot of other claims in this thread could be substantiated if anyone asks for them to be and someone can be bothered. Someone has called on that one - it's up to those who back the claim to substantiate it, not just wave their hands in the air and say they could if they felt like it.

 

[quatona]

The parent who is raising their child....


And that's the bottom line. We can debate this till the cows come home, but it's not going to affect the way I raise my child (no form of physical punishment) or the way the next person raises theirs. If or when you have children you will raise them the way you want to.

You make it sound like all people are unable or unwilling to learn or reconsider.

 

[rosalind110]

I haven't figured out yet why Lisa Whelchel is so often given a podium for parenting techniques in Christian circles.. did she do something other than play an actress on TV to become qualified to give advice on parenting to mass audiences?

The problem here as far as I can see is that there is no such thing as an 'expert' in child rearing, although some people may think that certain experience or training qualifies them as 'expert'. To look after a child in a care home or school environment is completely different from looking after one in a family environment, Studying child care and child pyschology is not the same as experiencing the upbringing of a child. People are affected by social circumstances, learned and acquired behaviour patterns, outside influences like schools and neighbourhood, broken homes, life experiences etc etc. Above each of us, child or adult, is a uniquely individual person and what works for one family won't work for another.

In my opinion, rather than judging whether other people are 'right' or 'wrong', all we can do is try to be the best possible carers and educators of our children and use spanking very moderately if we choose to use it all.

 

[rosalind110]

Smacking children is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. If it is a societal accepted form of discipline, then the standard is set that infliction of pain is acceptable.

Some people who are less intelligent will always go too far. Better to make the standard NO direct infliction of pain as a form of discipline.

People like this will likely do it whether or not there is a 'standard'.

 

[rosalind110]

If we are not above what you call "ignorant assumptions", are you going to beat us up to make us understand? (Yes, sarcastic, but where does the physical force end?)

I imagine that it would end in exactly the same place as it did for centuries within the 99% of families who spanked for discipline when it was a normal part of a child's upbringing and wasn't confused with 'beating', 'violence' or 'abuse'. If you are wondering, no, I'm not sure where that boundary was, but I think that the fact that most children were educated rather than harmed by it and didn't grow up to be abusers, criminals or violent adults is indictitive of the results.