Smacking Children

[Bananafish]

As a person who has worked with children, Im totally against spanking of any short.

If its illegal for teachers and others who work with children daily to use physical discipline and we are able to keep order, then it should not be an option for parents.

Exactly. I am a teacher, and I can control a whole class of kids without violence. Why can't parents do the same?

Using violence to teach children a lesson will only teach them one thing - to use violence when they disagree with someone else.

And I think hitting someone smaller and defenseless is just simply wrong. How would adults feel if everytime they did something at work that their boss didnt agree with they got hit?

Very good point!

 

[Lokisdottir]

I think people do get worked up because many of them have experienced childhood discipline as something more than just a rare swat on the bum. As I said before, a rare spank on the behind won't traumatize a child for life, but it certainly will communicate to the kid that the parent can't handle his or her temper. Violence against others signifies a loss of control and temper, and that is just the way it is.

I got spanked a few times. It was never "I'm angry at you so I'm going to hit you now." It was always done coolly, with a sense of I don't like this any more than you do but it's for your own good. Not all parents spank their children out of anger, or as a way to take out their aggression. Some do, and that's wrong.

 

[ebia]

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:

Just for fun, lets try examining this:

What if they fight back?
Children fight back because they think they have a chance of forestalling the spanking.

Can't blame them really.

First make sure the child never gains anything by fleeing. Second, cause the child to understand that he is further hurting himself by resisting.

After all, we wouldn't want a child to grow up thinking pain can ever be avoided.

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.

Some of this bit is actually good advice . Stay calm and in control.

Slowly pursue him, explaining that he cannot win.

Ok, so now you, the supposedly responsible adult, have turned it into a case of you winning over them, instead of any pretense of genuine consequence for the child's actions. This is no longer discipline, it's winning a fight with your child.

If it takes a long time, that’s fine.

Go to his hiding place and laugh at his frail attempts.

Humiliation. Possibly as bad as the violence and also in contravention of the UN convention on the rights of the child, IIRC. But then, the US is almost the only country not to sign that, along with Sudan I think.

Explain that if it takes fourteen days to bring him to justice, he will be brought to justice.

If you've been following the above this is no longer about justice, it's about you winning a fight.

Patience. Calm. Dignity.

Nice of them to repeat the only good advice so far.

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.

More abuse of your power. Way to go.

He must have calmed down for him to make a rational choice.

Maybe you should actually provide him with an option that a rational person would choose and understand was a natural consequence of whatever the initial mistake was.

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.

Let's throw away what little consitency was there. Oh, and giving him a chance to "win". With this kind of thinking it's not surprising your discipline plan has failed to produce results with or without violence.

If he is locked in his room, explain that you will unlock the door. There is no escape.

Never, ever, issue threats that you might not be able to back up.

Be calm, non-threatening in tone. Just quiet dignity.

How exactly do you say "I'm going to thrash you to within an inch of you life" in a non-threatening way?

Think of yourself as a high-ranking government official in charge of negotiations.

Then you've blown it and you are now in a state of war.

Know that in the end you will win.

Discipline is not a competition. Half your problems (at least) stem from allowing it to become one.

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.

Perhaps not this exact problem, but you've certainly created more than you've solved.

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.

Convenient that the kid is now somewhere where you can "drag him out" without loosing your dignity. I guess he'll learn one thing - find a better hiding spot (or run further).

Explain your position

"My ego demands that I win every dispute, by force if necessary."

and then put him in a confining position.

And then proceed to spank slowly.

We wouldn't want to get it over and done with and start building bridges and working relationships, would we.

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.

Is the kid half-witted or something?

If a kid is hysterical, he will not learn anything,

So why create an environment where it's pretty much certain he will be?

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.

Sorry, you blew any cause and effect relationship when you turned it into a battle.

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,

More "me v's him". Gone is any pretence of natural consequence, let alone restorative justice, and along with it any chance of useful learning.

and in the end he loses in the area of character. The child needs you to win with dignity.

Dafter and dafter. He doesn't need a battle at all, he needs a lesson.

His soul needs to surrender to a power greater than self.

Who do you think you are? God?

Remember, you are representing all authority to the child, including the authority of God.

Yep, I was right.

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;

Rationed spanking? Let's remove any remaining connection between behaviour and consequence.

others still need one after they are married.

Hmmm.

You should not spank beyond your fellowship with the child.

What the ... does that mean?

If you feel that your spanking is excessive, it is because it is not working.

State the obvious. If you are spanking at all it's because your discipline is not effective.

If it is not working to produce happy, creative kids, then you are missing one of the other elements we discussed.

Yep. Hitting people should be a guaranteed way to make them happy and creative. That's why artists hire people to beat them up.

You have probably forgotten how to relax and enjoy your children.

Or made them hate you.

Or perhaps you have failed to train.

Or perhaps the advice I'm giving you is terrible.

The bottom line is that if other things are equal, and you give a child a spanking every time he needs it,

never

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.

and interesting for the insight into the underlying failures of the guy's concept of discipline.

 

[ebia]

What I find interesting is that, in a world where children are exposed to drugs and sexual abuse, where guns are brought to schools and children are massacred, where kids are bullied to the point of suicide for being gay, or the wrong race or just smaller than others, or where children die from drugs given to them by neglectful adults, that some useless social worker had nothing better to do than prosecute a parent for trying to discipline their child.

Perhaps you can look at a parent smacking their child and infallibly determine if this was a one-off act of discipline or an example of regular abuse, but not everyone can. Perhaps in this particular case the line was overstepped, but that will always happen when we involve fallible people.

Given the links between parental abuse of children and a good number of the items in your list you seem a bit confused unless you want the state to stay out of the job of protecting children completely incase they occasionally infringe on the rights of an adult.

 

[ebia]

You make it seem as though all parents who spank are like that, when most only use it as a last resort.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Salvor Hardin.

Kids are naturally inclined to test their limits and push boundaries to see how much they can get away with.

That's their "job" at that age - finding out where the boundaries are. It's a necessary part of learning to be an adult in a complex social world.

Many of them will hear "Don't do that" as being some sort of game or challenge, which is frustrating at best, and can be deadly if the lesson they're defying is "Don't run into the street" or "Don't answer the door for a stranger." It's one thing if his mode of rebellion is to color on the walls with crayon, but if he tries to rebel against these commands, it is very important to get it through his head that this is not a joke, and that if he doesn't obey you, there will be serious consequences. Some kids will be able to understand the gravity of the situation. Others will not.

No one with half a brain disputes any of that. The question is "is violence an acceptable or effective way of doing that and can it be done without resorting to violence?"

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

[/color]
Perhaps you can look at a parent smacking their child and infallibly determine if this was a one-off act of discipline or an example of regular abuse, but not everyone can. Perhaps in this particular case the line was overstepped, but that will always happen when we involve fallible people.
Given the links between parental abuse of children and a good number of the items in your list you seem a bit confused unless you want the state to stay out of the job of protecting children completely incase they occasionally infringe on the rights of an adult.

The only confusion is on the part of the social worker, who seems to think their time is best spent prosecuting parents who “may have stepped across the line somewhere once because they dared to smack their child” rather than children who are actually suffering in far worse conditions. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Children who end up in situations like those I listed most often come from poor homes, without both parents and where discipline is lacking. That is where our social worker should have been focussing their time.

 

[ebia]

The only confusion is on the part of the social worker, who seems to think their time is best spent prosecuting parents who “may have stepped across the line somewhere once because they dared to smack their child” rather than children who are actually suffering in far worse conditions. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Children who end up in situations like those I listed most often come from poor homes, without both parents and where discipline is lacking. That is where our social worker should have been focussing their time.

The only confusion is on the part of the social worker, who seems to think their time is best spent prosecuting parents who “may have stepped across the line somewhere once because they dared to smack their child” rather than children who are actually suffering in far worse conditions.

I'm glad you know exactly what the social worker thought was going on. The rest of us can but guess. Your ability to read the minds of people you've never met is amazing. Let us set aside you special powers for a moment and suppose that the social worker was not just a busy body but rather what she saw appeared to be an indication that child abuse was happening at home, so she flagged it to be followed up. In most civilised countries that's what she is legally obliged to do. As it turns out the person wasn't guilty of child abuse and was not prosecuted so the system worked.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

That's why the situation had to be investigated and (if appropriate) taken to court instead of the mum just being dragged off and chucked in jail without a trial.

Children who end up in situations like those I listed most often come from poor homes, without both parents and where discipline is lacking. That is where our social worker should have been focussing their time.

What an impressive piece of inaccurate steriotyping. Let's have a look shall we:

exposed to drugs

Exists across all classes and families. The choice of drug varies, but that's beside the point.

and sexual abuse,

The people I know who were sexually abused as chlldren all come from "nice", middle-class, "traditional" families, and were abused by members of that family (incidentally, in half the cases the offenders were Christian ministers).

where guns are brought to schools

I've never lived in a country that has stuffed things up so badly that children carry guns to school, so I'll have to pass on that one.

and children are massacred,

again, I'm not aware that children being massacred is restricted to any particular group.

where kids are bullied to the point of suicide for being gay,

Tends to be more likely where there is a strong Christian presence.

or the wrong race

Over here that's often worse in "nice" afluent schools where racial diversity is limited and better in poorer multicultural environments. And worse in "nice, traditional, conservative, country areas" and less of a problem in "more liberal cities".

or just smaller than others,

Sorry, but bullying is universal.

or where children die from drugs given to them by neglectful adults,

I'll conceed that maybe this one is linked to poverty.

The fact is that child abuse in all it's hideous forms is sadly no respector of social divisions. It's an attitude of "people like me don't do stuff like that" that let so much of it go undetected in the past.

that some useless social worker had nothing better to do than prosecute a parent for trying to discipline their child.

Perhaps, but they weren't trying to prosecute a parent for disciplining their child. They were trying to deal with suspected child abuse.

 

[""]

I wonder whether anyone can give me their opinion about smacking children. I never slap my children and until recently I had a no-slapping rule in my household.

However, my wife does slap the children occasionally and was very upset recently when a social worker saw her slapping one of our children. The social worker made a huge issue out of it and tried to prosecute.

Advanced Warning:
This is going to be a very long post, so if you're not a parent or you have no desire to be a parent in the future, just skip over my post, please. I don't want to bore anybody. This is a subject that I take very seriously, so I took the time to make a well thought out post.


When you say "slapping", I assume you mean on the face, mouth, head, etc. I think this sort of behavior is deplorable. If I saw anybody slapping a child, I would turn them in immediately. If a parent will slap a child in public, they are most likely doing much worse to them in private. No child should ever be hit about the head or face. You can cause brain damage, and/or neurological damage very easily by hitting a child on the head or face. People don't realize how much force is behind a slap, and further more, they don't realize what that force will do to a tiny little body. Imagine a grizzly bear swatting a squirrel, and you get an idea. Before you mention the claws of the grizzly, think about the hands of a woman. Rings, fingernails, etc. All of these make for very sharp impact on the sensitive and vulnerable flesh of a child.

There is a big difference between slapping and spanking, and there's an even greater difference between beating and spanking. When God's word says that if you spare the rod, you spoil the child, it doesn't mean that you should literally go around whipping your child until they're welted and/or wounded. Spanking should be a last resort, and only used when a child has done something that will cause themselves or somebody else serious harm. Aside from that, time outs, and a firm voice will generally take care of any situation. Remember that children learn from their parents, so if you have a child that yells, screams, and acts out, before you blame the child, pay attention to how you act when you're angry or upset. How does your spouse act when she's angry or upset? Do you teach your child the difference between a loud outside voice and a quiet inside voice? Children need to be able to run around and make loud noises, but they should know that there is a place for that. If your desire is to teach a child how to behave, spanking is the wrong way to go about that. Instruction, repetitive behavior, and positive reinforcements go a long way in teaching a child how to behave. Children mimic, and their first teacher is always the parent. Also, curb your children's tv viewing, and pay attention to the programs you do let them watch. Many children's programs can be violent. Just because a tv station claims to show "kid's programming" doesn't mean your child should be sat down in front of it 24/7. If your child watches explosive, violent behavior, in person or on tv, they will likely mimic it. If you're not teaching them that this behavior is wrong, by being a better example and limiting their ability to view it, then spanking them is just your "easy way out". That's unfair to your children. If you're going to have a child, then you should be willing to give them the time and attention required to help them grow and become responsible, kind, human beings.

As far as spanking goes:
I can count the number of times I have spanked my child. It's a very rare occurrence, because it's not always necessary. He was spanked once when he threw something at a child with the intent to hit them in the head. It was a very hard object and if it had hit the other child, it would have really hurt him. He wasn't throwing it to be silly or because he didn't know it might hurt. He was angry. The child had made fun of him, and he got angry, so he threw a large, heavy, item, at the other child. He got two good swats on the bottom for that, and they made an impact. He needed to know that just because you're angry with somebody, doesn't mean you can hurt them. I did not spank him immediately, because I wanted to be sure he knew that I wasn't spanking him in anger. I sat him down, and talked to him about what he'd done. Then I explained why I would have to spank him. He saw how hurt I was about having to spank him. He knew that this was a very sad thing, and he never did it again. He learned his lesson.

I remember very well, a spanking I received as a child. I had purposefully run out into the street, after my mother had told me not to do it. She was trying to protect me from the cars going by, and I was defiant, trying to be a big girl and show that I could go in the street if I wanted to. I got a spanking that left a great impact on me. She was very mad at me, but she waited until she calmed down and then explained why I was getting a spanking. Let me tell you, I never ran into the street again, and I never once feared that my mother was abusing me or that she didn't love me. She chose very carefully when to spank, and why to spank. It wasn't an every day occurance, and it wasn't abusive. It was a corrective measure that had to be done due to a serious situation, when a firm voice clearly hadn't done the trick. She needed to teach me not to run into the street, or the next time I might have been hit by a car.

The point in spanking is not to take your anger out on the child. It should be used to make a firm impact in such a manner that it corrects a behavior which has been deemed dangerous. Again, it should be a rare occurrence, not a daily thing. It is abnormal to be spanking your children as a part of every day behavior management. Some children are very stubborn and they require a lot of attention. When this is the case, unfortunately, a choice has to be made, whereby one parent is able to spend the time necessary to help the child. Sometimes that requires a parent leaving a job. If that's not possible, then sometimes it requires intervention by a behavioral specialist that can help the parent learn exactly what is stimulating the child to the point that they exhibit out of control behavior. Sometimes it's family dynamics. Sometimes it's a food allergy. Sometimes it's a cry for attention. Sometimes it's a chemical imbalance. One thing I have learned, as the parent of a children with special needs, is that children should be treated as individuals with individual needs. That saying about the square peg and the round hole, is very applicable to children. You can't force a child to fit the mold you had hoped he/she was designed for, but you can modify his behavior and your own, in order to make life more comfortable, and more productive, for you both.


Long post, but this is an important topic to me.

 

[Athene]

I think people do get worked up because many of them have experienced childhood discipline as something more than just a rare swat on the bum. As I said before, a rare spank on the behind won't traumatize a child for life, but it certainly will communicate to the kid that the parent can't handle his or her temper. Violence against others signifies a loss of control and temper, and that is just the way it is.

I don't think so.

 

[KhiemTran1]

Spanking your child to discipline them is not against the law, it is against the law however to abuse them, for example they didn't do nothing wrong you just like to hit people. If parents choose to hit their child, well fine, but don't scare them, or else they will ignor you. Instead, you can try other means, talking, or maybe explain better... I dunno, I ain't no parent but that's what I feel. Dig?

 

[non-religious]

[Trogdor the Burninator]
Children who end up in situations like those I listed most often come from poor homes, without both parents and where discipline is lacking.

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.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I'm glad you know exactly what the social worker thought was going on. The rest of us can but guess. Your ability to read the minds of people you've never met is amazing.

I was simply assessing a situation described by another member on this board. But enjoy your patronising put downs all you want if they make you feel special.

Let us set aside you special powers for a moment and suppose that the social worker was not just a busy body but rather what she saw appeared to be an indication that child abuse was happening at home, so she flagged it to be followed up. In most civilised countries that's what she is legally obliged to do. As it turns out the person wasn't guilty of child abuse and was not prosecuted so the system worked.

Yes, the system worked by traumatising a famliy, possible putting them to great legal expense to defend themselves. Great "system" we've got here.

Tends to be more likely where there is a strong Christian presence.

Oh of course it does. What an impressive piece of inaccurate stereotyping.

Perhaps, but they weren't trying to prosecute a parent for disciplining their child. They were trying to deal with suspected child abuse.

Yes - "suspected" because a parent smacked their child in public. Read the OP.
But of course as long as it's other people's families being disrupted and broken up in the face of child abuse charges, we can all sit around on this board smug in the knowledge that the "system is working".

 

[Blackbird]

Perhaps, but they weren't trying to prosecute a parent for disciplining their child. They were trying to deal with suspected child abuse.

Yes - "suspected" because a parent smacked their child in public. Read the OP.
But of course as long as it's other people's families being disrupted and broken up in the face of child abuse charges, we can all sit around on this board smug in the knowledge that the "system is working".

The main point of criticism which I have of the whole episode with the social worker is the speed at which she jumped from an observation of fairly mild discipline (it was a very light slap) to suspicions of child abuse without any investigation in between.

Thank you all for your positive responses. This has been very helpful to me and my wife.

 

[non-religious]

[Trogdor the Burninator]
But of course as long as it's other people's families being disrupted and broken up in the face of child abuse charges, we can all sit around on this board smug in the knowledge that the "system is working".

It's a very fine line to tread becos on the one hand we can overlook a suspected child abuse case and then be completely accountable for the subsequent consequences, if we ignore what we feel is abuse. Or we can go in and take that child out of the family causing a great deal of emotional stress and turmoil, yet be completely wrong.

The life of a social worker is a very difficult one at times....

 

[furry001]

It's a very fine line to tread becos on the one hand we can overlook a suspected child abuse case and then be completely accountable for the subsequent consequences, if we ignore what we feel is abuse. Or we can go in and take that child out of the family causing a great deal of emotional stress and turmoil, yet be completely wrong.

The life of a social worker is a very difficult one at times....

Perhaps it would be better for the social workers to do nothing until absolute evidence of abuse has been gathered, rather than go in heavy handed and cause great emotional stress to parents and child and be wrong. In a court of law they would have to present that evidence. Why should they interfere if they have a "feeling" rather than concrete evidence?

 

[non-religious]

[furry001]Perhaps it would be better for the social workers to do nothing until absolute evidence of abuse has been gathered, rather than go in heavy handed and cause great emotional stress to parents and child and be wrong. In a court of law they would have to present that evidence. Why should they interfere if they have a "feeling" rather than concrete evidence?

Absolutely... and for the most part they do. Infact there are more cases of no intervention resulting in a child's death than intervening incorrectly. There is an extensive case study when any child is referred to Social Services. This should, although occasionally doesn't, involve a number of different teams to ensure fairness and absolute scrutiny of the cases involved. Of course some peole can and have made false and malicious claims about child abuse and this has led to children being removed, if only temporarily from their guardians.

 

[Chrystabelle]

Is a light slap on the face child abuse?

 

[Lokisdottir]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Salvor Hardin.

I disagree, but oh well.

That's their "job" at that age - finding out where the boundaries are. It's a necessary part of learning to be an adult in a complex social world.

And it's up to the parents to set them. If it can be done without spanking, wonderful. But don't turn up your nose at those at those who can't. If it takes the occasional spanking for the child to respect his parents' authority, so be it.

Too many parents frown on spanking without even bothering to find any other way of teaching their child respect. At the risk of sounding like an old fogey (and only 19!) that would certainly explain the behavior of most of the children I see in public. Kids these days...

No one with half a brain disputes any of that. The question is "is violence an acceptable or effective way of doing that and can it be done without resorting to violence?"

If you told a child not to touch the stove, and there was no pain reflex to make him draw his hand away, he would continue to do it and marvel at the interesting colors his hand is turning.

Let's also be clear that the mode of spanking I'm arguing for doesn't even really involve pain. A swat or two on the tush is not all that painful unless the parent goes out of his or her way to use excessive force (and I don't advocate that, either). It's more of a shock than anything else, kind of like spraying a cat with a water bottle.

 

[ottaia]

Is a light slap on the face child abuse?

IMHO, there is no need to slap anyone on the face.

People! Think about the rolemodel we are presenting here!

 

[freedom4all]

I was spanked, but very seldom, and never in the face, on the butt only, and it didn't leave marks. When I was told specifically not to do something, and did it anyway, or when I did something that was over the top. I'm not talking about not cleaning my room, or spilling a glass of milk, I am talking about swearing at my parents, throwing things at my parents, vandalizing property, etc. Talking things out with me simply did not work, I used to plug my ears. The whole "touchy-feely" concept doesn't work for every parent, and people need to realize that and not judge.