To spank or not to spank please vote

[Robinsegg]

Personal experience has taught me that spanking is harmful. Anyone that strikes a child is a brute.

My personal experience was with a poor parenting technique that used spanking for every offense. My parents learned better with my brother, because he didn't respond to spanking. They sent him to preschool and learned methods from his teachers. They, too, used corporal (of the body) punishment, but they confined him (held his wrist) to help him. My parents have mellowed over the years and even apologized to me around age 12.

Yes, a child needs to have their spirit unbroken. However, a child also needs to learn how to bend his will to those in authority over him, or he'll end up in real legal trouble when he's older. Some children need their wills broken once to help them with that, but I think that's probably the exception rather than the rule.

Spanking that breaks the spirit is (at least) bordering on abuse. Spanking that is done calmly and with the child knowing it will come for a certain action before perfoming that action is discipline.

Rachel

 

[armyman_83]

Spanking that breaks the spirit is (at least) bordering on abuse. Spanking that is done calmly and with the child knowing it will come for a certain action before perfoming that action is discipline.

Rachel

Agreed.

 

[ebia]

ebia: So we should model and perpetuate the world's inadequacies? What a bizaar idea.

you believe there shouldn't be any consequences for our actions?

That's not what I said. Consequences should be preferably restorative and at least directly connected to the issue. Arbitrary punishments that are not naturally connected to the misbehaviour aren't really consequences but retributive punishments - which don't work well.

 

[ebia]

Adults are different from children.

Indeed. Children need stronger protections, not weaker.

I am sorry you don't have enough wisdom to discern this passage. Maybe you should try other versions.

"I'm right so anyone who disagrees with me lacks discernment."

That is what I am talking about, but I am talking about corporal discipline in this case (as that is what this thread is about). So you just agree with me. "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

I agree that discipline is necessary. I don't agree that so called physical discipline is acceptable (or particularly effective). I certainly don't agree that beating a child with a rod will save them from hell.

Not really. You see you asked me something that didn't apply. You asked me if I would strike you because we disagreed (basing it on that verse) while in truth the verse said nothing about being in an argument.

Disagreeing and mocking is different if you didn't know

Irrelevent - the question still stands as a hypothetical - and you're evading it.

Merion Webster dictionary is a good site to at.

It's off topic but Websters is not considered a very good dictionary by most people outside of the US.

They do not respect Torah, which is the Word of God, thus it is wrong (thought you would see this point).

So you think you should be allowed to stone your children to death, and would do so if it wasn't against secular law?

 

[ebia]

yes! some children shoul be spanked or hit or whatever, but only if theyre being jerks to other people. my sister is very spoilt and sometimes calls my parents a-holes and many other things , no one can stand her, children need discipline or theyll end up a bunch of selfish ,spoiled bratts

This is a straw-man. No-one here is suggesting that children should not be disciplined.

 

[Niels]

Spanking that breaks the spirit is (at least) bordering on abuse. Spanking that is done calmly and with the child knowing it will come for a certain action before perfoming that action is discipline.

But how can you tell when you're crossing the line?

 

[quatona]

I'll send my daughter to her room when I know I'm too angry to even deal with it at the moment. I don't consider it a punishment to myself tho.. it's giving me time to cool down n think. Why I don't send myself out of the room.. my kid is in trouble for some reason, she can think about it while she's in her room. I have no qualms with playing trump here, I am her Mother. I'm not her buddy or friend. Our Mother n daughter relationship is what it is, I won't have things getting switched.

If it is what you want it is, if the fact that it is what it is is sufficient reason for you to keep it that way, there is not much point in discussing, eh? "It is like it is" has always driven me mad, ever since I was a child, because I have to this day failed to see how this is an argument of sorts.

it seems to me that some ppl don't want to make kids upset, mad, maybe afraid their children will hate them for a moment.
Too many parents are trying to be their child's friend. And too many parents are trying to put themselves in their child's place.. would I like someone to dictate to me what time I should go to bed?.. if I don't like it, why would I do that to my child? I didn't like it when I had curfew, so I let my 14yo daughter decide when she wants to come in. To me, this kind of parenting is easy (kinda lazy). I don't want to be that kind of parent.

Whilst it seems to me that at least one person is reading things into my post that aren´t in it.
I wasn´t talking about being friends or something (although, now you mention it, I am not sure I necessarily see a problem with that), I was talking about the respect that every human deserves, no matter what age.

 

[quatona]

you believe there shouldn't be any consequences for our actions?

There are consequences for every action. This is what children need to learn. Inflicting harm on them is not a "consequence", it is punishment.
If there is no negative consequence to an action there is no reason to avoid it. If you punish a child, you pretend there are consequences that quite apparently are not there, else you wouldn´t have to create them intentionally. It would be the job of the parents to make sure that the kid gets aware of the consequences. This is not always easy to do, particularly in view of the fact that there are often long-term consequences that do not kick in immediately. But that´s why children need time to learn.
Equivocating consequences and punishment is a dangerous mistake, in my conviction.

 

[Robinsegg]

But how can you tell when you're crossing the line?

Anyone giving this sort of discipline should be close enough to the child to see how the punishment effects the child. In my parent's case, they couldn't see it, but both sets of grandparents did, and the grandfathers each spoke to my father about it. He didn't listen until I was 12.
So, if you can't see it, but someone else close to the family does, it's time to stop and apologize.

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

If you punish a child, you pretend there are consequences that quite apparently are not there, else you wouldn´t have to create them intentionally. It would be the job of the parents to make sure that the kid gets aware of the consequences. This is not always easy to do, particularly in view of the fact that there are often long-term consequences that do not kick in immediately. But that´s why children need time to learn.

What if the natural consequences are much more harmful than anything the parents can create intentionally? What if the child is reaching for an electrical outlet, or a stove? What if the child is climbing on a bookcase that will topple over on them? What if the child is going to run into a busy street? Sometimes the natural consequences are much worse.

As you stated, sometimes the consequences are so long-reaching and so delayed that they're not immediately associated with the original action. That does make it difficult to use only natural consequences. You have to make some artificial ones (that the child knows in advance, when not a safety issue) to help your child learn.

All that said, I'm a big proponent of allowing natural consequences to teach the child, in controlled circumstances. I don't see being hit by a car a controlled circumstance, nor being electrocuted. In our family, one swat is the result of direct defiance. Because hubby and I are entrusted with our children's care, it is imperative that they obey us. They are allowed to ask the reasons for our rules, and they are allowed to say how they feel about our rules. If they don't like a rule, we'll look at it and our reasons for it to decide if it needs to stay that way or not. But when I say "stop", my children are expected (and do) to stop on a dime, so to speak. That is for their safety. I also have a special phrase I use to have them come to me immediately (another safety measure). Obedience is important, both now as children to obey their parents, and as adults to obey the laws (and their bosses if they don't want to be fired). They need to learn that along with their own independence, which grows with maturity.

Rachel

 

[ebia]

Equivocating consequences and punishment is a dangerous mistake, in my conviction.

The educational establishment can take much of the blame for perpetuating, if not originating, the use of "consequence" as a euphamism for "punishment".

 

[Robinsegg]

This is a straw-man. No-one here is suggesting that children should not be disciplined.

I like the idea of talking to them. I don´t like the idea of taking something important away from them very much. I wouldn´t want anyone to do that to me, just because he doesn´t like what I do.

Here's where I got the idea someone said something to the effect of let's not discipline. I may have been reading into it, but I rather think no one likes to be disciplined. Therefor, quatona wouldn't like being disciplined, therefor, quatona probably wouldn't want a child being disciplined.

Children need boundaries, and at a young age most of them will be created by the parents. The parents have to find a way to enforce those boundaries. That means discipline for when the boundaries are crossed. This gives the child security, knowing that the boundaries are not to be crossed lightly, and that the adults in his/her life care enough about the child to enforce the given boundaries.

Rachel

 

[ebia]

What if the natural consequences are much more harmful than anything the parents can create intentionally? What if the child is reaching for an electrical outlet, or a stove? What if the child is climbing on a bookcase that will topple over on them? What if the child is going to run into a busy street? Sometimes the natural consequences are much worse.

"Natural consequences" doesn't have to mean "just let them do it and suffer the result". For example, a restriction on freedom is an (albeit imperfect) natural consequence for an abuse of freedom. A spanking is not a remotely a natural consequence.

 

[DivineRAiN]

quatona: "It is like it is" has always driven me mad, ever since I was a child, because I have to this day failed to see how this is an argument of sorts.

It is what it is, she is my child, I am her Mother. And yes, I am the adult. Some ppl have a problem with this, I don't know why.

I wasn´t talking about being friends or something (although, now you mention it, I am not sure I necessarily see a problem with that), I was talking about the respect that every human deserves, no matter what age

by saying you don't like the idea of taking something special away, and you wouldn't want anything special taken away from you.. it seemed you were going with the idea that if you don't want this done you, then it shouldn't be done to kids. (or that you wouldn't do it to your kids) This kind of parenting reminds me of .. I think it's TCS parenting.

 

[Robinsegg]

"Natural consequences" doesn't have to mean "just let them do it and suffer the result". For example, a restriction on freedom is an (albeit imperfect) natural consequence for an abuse of freedom. A spanking is not a remotely a natural consequence.

Okay, so you're saying that a small slap on the wrist (which doesn't really inflict pain, but gives a sudden "uh oh" feeling) is bad because it's not any kind of natural consequence? I'd say it's sometimes necessary with some kids to give them that feeling. They need something physical to help them understand, esp. at a very early age (say, just starting to explore).

I'm glad I misread the other thing, and you do believe there should be boundaries and consequences. We just disagree on a couple of points on the implementation of those consequences.
Rachel

 

[DivineRAiN]

quatona: There are consequences for every action. This is what children need to learn. Inflicting harm on them is not a "consequence", it is punishment

k, punishment works and it's useful. I'm not one to rely on natural consequences 100% of the time.

 

[DivineRAiN]

ebia: "Natural consequences" doesn't have to mean "just let them do it and suffer the result". For example, a restriction on freedom is an (albeit imperfect) natural consequence for an abuse of freedom. A spanking is not a remotely a natural consequence

what would be the imperfect/perfect natural consequence for a child darting into the street?.. refusing to do homework?.. wanting to play with outlets?

Restriction of freedom/grounding didn't work with my daughter when she was younger, nor time-outs. Being an only child worked in her favor I think n she preferred to be in the house anyway. She was more of a loner, since the kids used to pick on her with some racist crap. Right now taking the phone away would work, she's been on it all day (n she's still on it).

 

[ebia]

Okay, so you're saying that a small slap on the wrist (which doesn't really inflict pain, but gives a sudden "uh oh" feeling) is bad because it's not any kind of natural consequence?

I'm saying it's not very effective because of that. It's bad simply because hitting defenseless people is wrong.

I'd say it's sometimes necessary with some kids to give them that feeling. They need something physical to help them understand, esp. at a very early age (say, just starting to explore).

That assertion has been made, over and over, but it hasn't been demonstrated to be true. (I'm not sure how one could demonstrate it to be true mind.) Many parents decide it's not true - that there are always other alternatives - and succeed (providing that they have other alternatives) - which would indicate that it's not necessary.

I'm glad I misread the other thing, and you do believe there should be boundaries and consequences. We just disagree on a couple of points on the implementation of those consequences.
Rachel

That's correct. In fact most children become very confused and unhappy if there aren't clear boundaries and consequences for going beyond those boundaries.

 

[ebia]

k, punishment works and it's useful.

Our ever increasing prison populations are pretty good evidence that punishment doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work in schools, where it's the same kids being punished week after week. So I see little reason to suppose it works at home.

 

[PETE_]

I'm saying it's not very effective because of that. It's bad simply because hitting defenseless people is wrong.

Hitting defenseless people and spanking a child are simply different.


That assertion has been made, over and over, but it hasn't been demonstrated to be true. (I'm not sure how one could demonstrate it to be true mind.) Many parents decide it's not true - that there are always other alternatives - and succeed (providing that they have other alternatives) - which would indicate that it's not necessary.

Truth is there are other options, but are they the best, most effective and efficient options. If people become adament that isolating a child is cruel, does that make it so?

That's correct. In fact most children become very confused and unhappy if there aren't clear boundaries and consequences for going beyond those boundaries.

Children do well when they have discipline and order. They can then know how to behave.