To spank or not to spank please vote

[Robinsegg]

So let´s say it is counterproductive in regards to what I would like them to base their behaviour on.

What is it that you want a child to base his/her behavior on?

If you inflict harm on them, they will learn that this is the punishment.
They won´t learn about the consequences. Conditioning, in fact, means the very opposite: Preventing children from learning about the consequences, because the will never reach the point of facing the consequences.
What they are facing instead is an arbitrarily inflicted punishment. They are taught obedience, that´s what it comes down to.

But many times the arbitrary consequence is better for the child than the natural one. As you post later, we wouldn't try that with stepping in front of a truck.

Now that may be another reason for our disagreements: I don´t believe that obedience is a virtue, and I don´t see how teaching kids obedience enables them to make educated and informed decisions.

Okay, I see this now. You see, I believe that if we teach children to obey their parents, they'll have an easier time obeying God as they get older. I also believe that it will be easier to obey legal authority (and their bosses when they get jobs, etc.) as they get older. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind questioning authority and the reasons behind rules. But obedience can be useful. Also, the questioning needs to be done respectfully, as I model before my children when I ask them the reasons behind what they do.

Sounds like it´s more about you than about them here. Not that there´s necessarily something wrong with that.
As said above, I think children need to have the opportunity to face consequences. If I recommend the kid not to touch this ("it´s hot! You´ll get hurt."), and it will touch it nonetheless, it will learn to things: 1. That touching this thing hurts. 2. That my prediction of the consequences is reliable.

And some would argue face charges for child neglect.

This leads them to focus on the relevant things, imo. Whilst making the question "Will mommy (the government) punish me when I do that" is not the motive I would like societal behaviour be built upon.

I'm still unclear what you would like societal behavior to be built on?

Now, allow me to ask a question (please don´t take it the wrong way, I merely ask it to discern some things):
What, in your opinion, are the basic differences in education a kid and educating a dog? In terms of purposes, priorities, goals, methods?

The differences between educating a child and a dog are very simple for me. I want my child to learn to discipline himself/herself. I want my daughter, for instance, to learn how to harness her emotions, impulses and desires and really be able to assess what the consequences for her actions will be before she acts. I want her to grow into an individual who can make descisions based on what she knows to be right and wrong, correct societal behavior, and how it will effect others. I teach her that early (beginning with simple concepts of what I believe, graduating to more complex, and finally to what is normal in our and other societies), so that I can help her in descisions as she grows.

This is what confuses me: That making them do what is expected from them is sort of the highest priority in education.

It's the highest priority in discipline, not in all educaiton. Discipline is part of that education, so she (my daughter) can take over with self-discipline. So she can be well-disciplined to persevere through a difficult project (if it's judged, by her, to be worthwhile or is needed for another requirement), so she can choose her goals and have the self-discipline to achieve them.

Rachel, let me emphasize (maybe too late) that this is nothing personal. I´m not trying to picture you as a poor mother or something, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a loving person with the best intentions, and I believe you right away that the development of your kids is to your satisfaction.

I took no offense. I was simply trying to say that my children are not hellions, that they don't harm others, they are well adjusted and my daughter (at age 6) is making descisions for herself that are wise (mature) for her age.

It certainly makes sense within the frame of certain axioms that I don´t share.

So, we simply don't share the same goals for children. Okay.
Rachel

 

[quatona]

What is it that you want a child to base his/her behavior on?

Reason, intuition, knowledge about the consequences , information, compassion, empathy, just to name the first few that come to mind.

But many times the arbitrary consequence is better for the child than the natural one.

That would pretty much depend on what we consider "good for the child", which of the numerous effects we take into consideration, and at what point in time we determine the result to be "good" according to what we have determined to be "good".

As you post later, we wouldn't try that with stepping in front of a truck.

And you can be sure that I won´t accuse a mother who - terrified, in shock, helpless - spanks her child if he runs in front of a truck.
We are talking about methods that are accepted for a usual means of education, not about the last resort in case of immediate danger.

Okay, I see this now. You see, I believe that if we teach children to obey their parents, they'll have an easier time obeying God as they get older. I also believe that it will be easier to obey legal authority (and their bosses when they get jobs, etc.) as they get older. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind questioning authority and the reasons behind rules. But obedience can be useful. Also, the questioning needs to be done respectfully, as I model before my children when I ask them the reasons behind what they do.

Well, we seemed to have nailed a basic difference here. I diagree with most of these axioms.

And some would argue face charges for child neglect.

Not sure I understand.

I'm still unclear what you would like societal behavior to be built on?

See above.

The differences between educating a child and a dog are very simple for me. I want my child to learn to discipline himself/herself.

Ok, another point where our axioms are not congruent. I don´t see discipline as an end in itself. I know that self-discipline is often a useful trait, and I would like to communicate it as that: as a tool, not as a value (not to mention the highest).
On another note, I don´t seem to understand which part spanking is supposed to play in learning discipline for oneself. To me this appears to be a self-contradiction.

I want my daughter, for instance, to learn how to harness her emotions, impulses and desires and really be able to assess what the consequences for her actions will be before she acts. I want her to grow into an individual who can make descisions based on what she knows to be right and wrong, correct societal behavior, and how it will effect others.

Agreed.

I teach her that early (beginning with simple concepts of what I believe, graduating to more complex, and finally to what is normal in our and other societies), so that I can help her in descisions as she grows.

In the above paragraph you said you wanted her to learn about the consequences of behaviour, now you say you teach her what you believe.
Whilst my priority would be to make sure she is enabled to find out what is best for her to believe, and that she doesn´t need my advice anymore as early as possible.

It's the highest priority in discipline, not in all educaiton.

Not to be overly critical, but above you mention discipline as first in your priority chart in education, and now you mention making someone do what you want the first priority in discipline. That would make it the first priority in education, no?

Discipline is part of that education, so she (my daughter) can take over with self-discipline.

I am doubting that self-discipline is best communicated by making someone respond to external discipline. There seems to be something self-contradictory behind that idea.

So she can be well-disciplined to persevere through a difficult project (if it's judged, by her, to be worthwhile or is needed for another requirement), so she can choose her goals and have the self-discipline to achieve them.

That´s something I would want for children, too.

I took no offense. I was simply trying to say that my children are not hellions, that they don't harm others, they are well adjusted and my daughter (at age 6) is making descisions for herself that are wise (mature) for her age.

Well, I just would like to keep these personal examples out of the discussion. There is much potential for someone being hurt in such. Just like when persons say they have been abused as children, and yet turned out great. I don´t want to go there.

 

[Loundry]

No, it's not. It's abuse, pure and simple, and no one should ever hit a child.

1. The concepts of "abuse" and "not abuse" are not so black-and-white. To claim that spaking is "abuse" and thus no different from sexually abusing a child is retarded. Did you make that claim? No, but you have to qualify. Not all abuse is equal.

2. There is no reason to hit a child for the sake of discipline. You are framing the debate in terms of, "Are you evil or not?" and should you be surprised if you come across resistance to your ideas? Perhaps frame it this way: "If you knew of a way to discipline your children without hitting, would you choose it?" The reason why people hit children is because of lack of education about proper discipline techniques.

3. No one should ever hit anyone except in self-defense. If a 15-year-old male child becomes violent and starts to hit his mother, who is much smaller than he is, is she prohibited from fighting back? Granted such behavior would clearly be evidential of massive problems in the home, but you must explain that hitting is unnecessary for discipline.

EDIT: Reworded point #1 for clarity.

 

[Robinsegg]

Reason, intuition, knowledge about the consequences , information, compassion, empathy, just to name the first few that come to mind.

Thanks

Not sure I understand.

I was trying to say that if you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, but don't go to stop the child and allow the child to get burned on the hot stove, some would consider that neglect.

On another note, I don´t seem to understand which part spanking is supposed to play in learning discipline for oneself. To me this appears to be a self-contradiction.

Spanking is a disciplinary tool to help a child understand how serious an action is. It should be used for certain infractions (not as a last resort, as that leads to adults spanking in anger) and sparingly. If spanking is used more than about once per month, it's being used too much. But used for certain infractions and sparingly, it can help a child discern what is most important to avoid. This gives priority and help in understanding priorities in what to avoid. This skill will be useful later in life (to avoid punishment from government, etc.) I know you don't care for our justice system, but we have to train kids for what they will experience.

Not to be overly critical, but above you mention discipline as first in your priority chart in education, and now you mention making someone do what you want the first priority in discipline. That would make it the first priority in education, no?

Maybe I misspoke at some point. Discipline is one of the most useful concepts to teach a child at an early age. As discipline is taught, self-discipline can take over. Self-discipline as early as possible is a good goal. My actual educational philosophy, however, tells me that educating a child in how to learn is the most important educational goal. Once a child knows how to learn, he/she can learn anything.

I am doubting that self-discipline is best communicated by making someone respond to external discipline. There seems to be something self-contradictory behind that idea.

Teaching a child to respond to external discipline can be a starting place for what discipline is. It's the first of many building blocks. Over time, the goal is to be able to set aside external discipline for the child to be able to discern correct behavior for him/herself. Correct behavior will be determined by a combination of parents and society.

Rachel

 

[Niels]

The differences between educating a child and a dog are very simple for me. I want my child to learn to discipline himself/herself. I want my daughter, for instance, to learn how to harness her emotions, impulses and desires and really be able to assess what the consequences for her actions will be before she acts. I want her to grow into an individual who can make descisions based on what she knows to be right and wrong, correct societal behavior, and how it will effect others. I teach her that early (beginning with simple concepts of what I believe, graduating to more complex, and finally to what is normal in our and other societies), so that I can help her in descisions as she grows

But how exactly does spanking encourage self dicipline? Would you rather a child grow up to be an adult that bases their behavior on the fear of being hit, or would you rather that child become an adult that bases their behavior on reason and courtesy? Children are little people, people who will hopefully grow into respectable adults, not slaves. If you ask me, discipline via hitting just doesn't seem well suited to raising future doctors, artists, scientists et al., but instead better suited to producing fearful underachievers. What they need is self discipline, not corporal punishment. Self discipline breeds confidence, whereas spanking produces anxiety. Anxiety (especially the kind that comes from being hit by loved ones) not only destroys self confidence, but may even inspire defiance (because their fight or flight instinct has been triggered). Unfortunately, a child that becomes defiant will not only inspire a spanker to hit again, but to hit harder. To make matters worse, if the child tries to reason with them, they will be hit again, because children aren't supposed to "talk back". What kind of lesson does that teach our children, and do we really think that will help them become self actualized adults?

 

[Loundry]

If you ask me, discipline via hitting just doesn't seem well suited to raising future doctors, artists, scientists et al., but instead better suited to producing fearful underachievers. What they need is self discipline, not corporal punishment.

I prefer not to get bogged down into subjective discussions about what children need. Instead, I frame it this way:

If you knew of a way to discipline your children that did NOT involve hitting, would you choose it?

I would have serious reservations about the parent who would answer, "No, I don't care about any other methods. I want to hit my children."

I believe that the reason people still use hitting as a means of discipline is a lack of knowledge. Plus, they also highly resent being talked down to by "progressives".

 

[Robinsegg]

But how exactly does spanking encourage self dicipline? Would you rather a child grow up to be an adult that bases their behavior on the fear of being hit, or would you rather that child become an adult that bases their behavior on reason and courtesy?

I use spanking sparingly, and hope to retire it very soon, in the case of my oldest. She is encouraged in self-discipline by my giving her a choice to backtrack before she is punished.

Unfortunately, a child that becomes defiant will not only inspire a spanker to hit again, but to hit harder.

Actually, in my house, defiance is the only reason to be spanked. That happened before the spanking and is unlikely to be the result of the spanking (one swat).

To make matters worse, if the child tries to reason with them, they will be hit again, because children aren't supposed to "talk back".

Not in my house. A child who is about to be spanked is talked to about it first, to make sure she understands why she will be spanked. She has every right to give her side of it. If I think I was unjust, the spanking will not occur. If I think I was just, I will explain why and administer the swat. Then we talk some more and "make up" and go on with our regularly scheduled programming.

What kind of lesson does that teach our children, and do we really think that will help them become self actualized adults?

The way I do it? Yes. I think that helping them, at a young age, listen to those in authority will help them learn how to "play by the rules" and avoid very detrimental consequences as a teen or adult. Being a valuable member of society will help a child to acheive his/her goals easier and have the respect of others.

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

I prefer not to get bogged down into subjective discussions about what children need. Instead, I frame it this way:

If you knew of a way to discipline your children that did NOT involve hitting, would you choose it?

I would have serious reservations about the parent who would answer, "No, I don't care about any other methods. I want to hit my children."

I believe that the reason people still use hitting as a means of discipline is a lack of knowledge. Plus, they also highly resent being talked down to by "progressives".

I'll go along with this. While I do spank, I use other methods most of the time. Being told by people who don't know my kids, my family, my background, etc. that I'm abusing my kids by occasionally putting my hand to their butts makes me feel defensive and makes me see the speaker as and uninformed person (at best).

Rachel

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

My mother was physically abusive. There is a big difference between spanking and beating/abuse of a child. Most kids know the difference. I personally see no reason to though. Guilting children is just as subversive if you ask me. Discipline is more than spanking, it's being consistant and immediate and having your spouse back you up. Without those things even spanking doesn't work.

 

[txparamedic]

When my children were small spanking served two perposes The first was negetive reenforcement (do wrong = punishment) the second was giving them something tangable to fear ( If you are to young to fear electrical outlets because you dont understand what they can do then fear daddy because you do understand what he will do if you mess with the outlet).
The older they got the less of number two they needed but once in awhile number one comes into play.

 

[Niels]

I believe that the reason people still use hitting as a means of discipline is a lack of knowledge. Plus, they also highly resent being talked down to by know-it-all (and frequently stupid) "progressives".

I agree. So many of the world's problems stem from a lack of knowledge... and this topic is no exception.


While I shouldn't say I was "abused" by my parents (they meant well... and child psychology encouraged their discipline method), spanking proved to be counterproductive. I won't go into detail about the consequences, because I'd prefer to retain some of my dignity, but lets just say the results weren't desireable. In any event, I felt terribly guilty about not responding to spanking like a 'normal' child should.

Reason always worked better for me.

 

[Robinsegg]

When my children were small spanking served two perposes The first was negetive reenforcement (do wrong = punishment) the second was giving them something tangable to fear ( If you are to young to fear electrical outlets because you dont understand what they can do then fear daddy because you do understand what he will do if you mess with the outlet).
The older they got the less of number two they needed but once in awhile number one comes into play.

You made my point, and was more pithy with it, too!
Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

In any event, I felt terribly guilty about not responding to spanking like a 'normal' child should.

Reason always worked better for me.

This is why discipline should be tailored for the individual child.

Rachel

 

[Loundry]

I agree. So many of the world's problems stem from a lack of knowledge... and this topic is no exception.


While I shouldn't say I was "abused" by my parents (they meant well... and child psychology encouraged their discipline method), spanking proved to be counterproductive. I won't go into detail about the consequences, because I'd prefer to retain some of my dignity, but lets just say the results weren't desireable. In any event, I felt terribly guilty about not responding to spanking like a 'normal' child should.

Reason always worked better for me.

My heart goes out to you. Most parents have good intentions.

Saying "use reason!" isn't nearly good enough for parents. It's tantamount to saying, "You're stupid!" Despite the fact that I use reason as my only absolute by which I derive my ethic, I fully admit that what parents need is knowledge, not just reason. They need to know what the techniques are so that they can discipline their children without relying on pain, fear, guilt, or humiliation. It is difficult because it implies a rejection of the way that our own parents raised us, and that implies that we reject a part of our own parents. I understand why many Christians may have a hard time with that, since "honor thy father and mother" is ingrained into many protestants just as it was into me.

 

[Charlie V]

I'll go along with this. While I do spank, I use other methods most of the time. Being told by people who don't know my kids, my family, my background, etc. that I'm abusing my kids by occasionally putting my hand to their butts makes me feel defensive and makes me see the speaker as and uninformed person (at best).

Rachel

I have no reason to believe you're abusing your kids, nor would I make such a statement.

But there are uninformed people who condescend on others on both sides of this camp. Just as I wouldn't want a parent such as yourself falsely accused of abuse, I wouldn't want the uninformed "know it alls" who oppose progressives to falsely accuse me of being overly permissive, spoiling my child, neglectful or failing to discipline, simply because I find non-physical methods of discipline.

There are even those who say that my parenting techinques are anti-Christian. The Bible says I have to use the rod -- I don't, so I must be a follower of Satan's ways.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

I was trying to say that if you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, but don't go to stop the child and allow the child to get burned on the hot stove, some would consider that neglect.

I´d say, let them call it what they want it.
In my experience, it is amazing how rarely children who are not warned to do this or that all the time really hurt themselves. Children are eager to learn, in fact it´s hard to keep them from learning.

Spanking is a disciplinary tool to help a child understand how serious an action is. It should be used for certain infractions (not as a last resort, as that leads to adults spanking in anger) and sparingly. If spanking is used more than about once per month, it's being used too much. But used for certain infractions and sparingly, it can help a child discern what is most important to avoid. This gives priority and help in understanding priorities in what to avoid. This skill will be useful later in life (to avoid punishment from government, etc.) I know you don't care for our justice system, but we have to train kids for what they will experience.

This is not the question. The question is how we are doing that.
Besides, preparing a child for something you disapprove of is something different from purposefully reinforcing a system by using the same methods that this system uses.
Although I think it is a good idea for parents to learn to keep their emotions in check, I think I see more problems with planful spanking than with spanking as an expression of fear and helplessness in the moment of highest danger. I am inclined to think that the authenticity of this reaction will translate, and I would almost count it as consequence. Apologizing later will help, too. Generally, I don´t expect parents to be perfect. Making mistakes and apologizing makes an important model, as well.
But let´s keep to spanking as a planful, well-calculated tool as the topic.

Maybe I misspoke at some point. Discipline is one of the most useful concepts to teach a child at an early age. As discipline is taught, self-discipline can take over.

I still don´t seem to understand how this process is supposed to work. Reacting to external discipline is something completely different than self-discipline. Actually, I tend to think it´s sort of the opposite.

Self-discipline as early as possible is a good goal.

No, I don´t think so. There are higher goals for me, and in my observation children can concentrate for a long time if it is important and interesting to them. By emphasizing self-discipline you direct their focus on the fact that something is undesirable, before they even had the chance to find it desirable.

My actual educational philosophy, however, tells me that educating a child in how to learn is the most important educational goal. Once a child knows how to learn, he/she can learn anything.

Completely agreed. I don´t understand, though, how spanking helps with learning to learn.

Teaching a child to respond to external discipline can be a starting place for what discipline is. It's the first of many building blocks.

You keep repeating that, but I still don´t understand why you think that. These two things are so utterly different (and even opposite in their nature in many a respect) that I have no idea how one would lead to the other.

Over time, the goal is to be able to set aside external discipline for the child to be able to discern correct behavior for him/herself.

How the heck would he have learned that? The most important part about self-discipline is "self", and exactly to decide for yourself what deserves discipline or not learning the way how to help yourself being concentrated, focussed have been prevented rather than helped by conditioning.

Correct behavior will be determined by a combination of parents and society.

Maybe I don´t even know what correct behaviour is.

 

[Loundry]

But there are uninformed people who condescend on others on both sides of this camp. Just as I wouldn't want a parent such as yourself falsely accused of abuse, I wouldn't want the uninformed "know it alls" who oppose progressives to falsely accuse me of being overly permissive, spoiling my child, neglectful or failing to discipline, simply because I find non-physical methods of discipline.

1. I wouldn't call my methods of discipline "non-physical". I warn my child for his behavior. Behavior continues. I tell my child to go to time-out. He refuses. I warn him that I will move him if he doesn't choose to go himself. He resists. I pick him up and move him to time-out. He's 6. I'm stronger. Physical? Yes. Hitting? No way. In time, he will learn that I am the boss because I will always be more patient than he is. And, yes, he's learning.

2. I totally agree with you that there are "know-it-alls" on both sides of the camp. It seems to me that the "If you spank, you are an evil CHILD ABUSER!!!" "progressives" are not only more numerous, but louder and more condescending.

There are even those who say that my parenting techinques are anti-Christian. The Bible says I have to use the rod -- I don't, so I must be a follower of Satan's ways.

People sure can be mean! As a gay adoptive parent, I know just how you feel -- except that those people who criticize you also legislate against me.

 

[Robinsegg]

But there are uninformed people who condescend on others on both sides of this camp.

And those who are uninformed but draw conclusions are wrong, no matter what side they come from.

Rachel

 

[Charlie V]

2. I totally agree with you that there are "know-it-alls" on both sides of the camp. It seems to me that the "If you spank, you are an evil CHILD ABUSER!!!" "progressives" are not only more numerous, but louder and more condescending.

It's funny -- it often seems whenever a topic is being discussed, that topic is the #1 topic on the planet.

On the average week, I actually hear approximately zero conversations about this topic. People I know tend to talk more about ball scores and music than they do spanking. I suspect that the "know it alls" on both sides of the camp on spanking are in total less than 1% of the population. So I wouldn't call them numerous. I'm wondering where these numerous people are. I never see them. The numerous people I know talk about things like American Idol, sports, cars.. you know, regular stuff the non-message board people talk about. I think most of the rare conversations I actually hear about spanking involve adults and have sexual overtones.

I'm a progressive. It seems to me -- forgetting the topic of spanking and speaking in general -- progressives are rare.

I certainly don't think every person who spanks is an evil child abuser.

Some people tell me I'm loud sometimes, but I suspect I may have hearing loss. I keep meaning to have it checked out by a doctor.

I like to think I'm not condescending. There are some times when I actually know more about some subjects than other people, but I try to be nice.

Charlie

 

[Loundry]

It's funny -- it often seems whenever a topic is being discussed, that topic is the #1 topic on the planet.

On the average week, I actually hear approximately zero conversations about this topic. People I know tend to talk more about ball scores and music than they do spanking. I suspect that the "know it alls" on both sides of the camp on spanking are in total less than 1% of the population. So I wouldn't call them numerous. I'm wondering where these numerous people are. I never see them.

I was, of course, referring to the confines of this topic. Certainly "American Idol" is a much more common and popular topic of conversation (well, not in my circle of friends, but you get the idea) than is, say, circumcision. That said, when the topic comes up, who is yelling the loudest?

(I oppose circumcision, but I'm not rude about it.)

I'm a progressive. It seems to me -- forgetting the topic of spanking and speaking in general -- progressives are rare.

It depends on the venue (or the topic of discussion!). Here, on this site, I agree that "progressives" are rare.

I certainly don't think every person who spanks is an evil child abuser.

Some people tell me I'm loud sometimes, but I suspect I may have hearing loss. I keep meaning to have it checked out by a doctor.

I like to think I'm not condescending. There are some times when I actually know more about some subjects than other people, but I try to be nice.

You seem that way to me as well. I wish I could say the same about the vast majority of your "progressive" bretheren. They seem exactly like Christian Fundamentalists to me -- only more condescending and more violent. And they worship a different god. Suffice it to say that I have a gob-smackingly low opinion of "progressivism", but if you are nice to me then we may turn out to be friends some day. I've just found that most "progressives" think I'm a walking piece of flea excrement who deserves to be shotgunned in the face and urinated on, so we usually don't get along very well.

EDIT: spelled "fundamentalists" correctly.