I think it’s usually the least creative, with no relationship between transgression and punishment.
I agree, but an absolute prohibition against spanking is fundamentally wrong. Just because the death penalty is the punishment of last resort does not mean that it is never the correct punishment.
My oldest is 4 1/2, reads and does basic arithmetic, is inquisitive and is generally not much of a disciplinary problem. But, sometimes, he is and, as noted, in certain circumstances he has received a swat. The intention was not a desire to inflict pain for its own sake. My daughter, who is only 2 and now speaking very well, is also generally a very good child. But, she had a habit of throwing her uneaten food on the floor once she was full. Reasoning and speaking firmly proved wholly ineffective and simply removing the food wasn’t always practical either. A few smacks on her hand taught her that the consequences of throwing food on the floor were unpleasant and so she no longer does this. She has learned to exercise self-control. As she grows up, the full context will become evident. I fail to see anything even remotely immoral in having disciplined in this way nor do I forseee her future consisting of psychological difficulties, lack of trust, hostility to learning etc based on any of this. Physical punishment and acting as a teacher to one’s children are not mutually exclusive. Whenever my children receive any sort of punishment, they are told why they are being punished. Context matters.
Removing toys or denying of privileges can certainly be effective, particularly as the child becomes older. However, all of these things involve an element of physical coercion since one’s ability to remove toys or privileges or change the situation, and to maintain those conditions, rests entirely on one’s superior physical strength compared to that of the child, who is unable to physically prevent you from doing so. Accordingly, I see nothing but a difference in degree here.
Children are all different and so are circumstances. So, while I am suitably impressed with those posters who have never had to spank their children and respect their views, I do not regard their experiences as definitive or inherently more valid than those of other parents who have had or chosen to spank. Claims that spanking is inherently humiliating or demeaning (to both parents and children) represents a value judgement of an almost exclusively subjective nature. There are certainly examples of parents who have never spanked who have watched their children grow up to be very badly behaved.
Claims that spanking is inherently humiliating or demeaning (to both parents and children) represents a value judgement of an almost exclusively subjective nature.
It’s not inherently humiliating or demeaning, but it can be, One way in which it becomes so is when the parent does it in full view of other people. In general it’s better to discipline children in privacy.
It’s not inherently humiliating or demeaning, but it can be, One way in which it becomes so is when the parent does it in full view of other people. In general it’s better to discipline children in privacy.
In general, but in specific sometimes its better to do it in front of their peers. Particularly if said child is acting up in front of their peers, because their peers are there.
Age is also a factor. For example, a good friend, and super mom of 4, went to an amusement park with us as part of a group trip. While there, her 4 year old son decided he didn’t like his swim shorts. He pulled them down. She pulled them up again and said don’t do that. He pulled them down again. She swatted his naked behind, once, sharply, right then and there, and pulled them up again and said, “don’t do that”.
He left them up.
Her kids are awesome, love em to death, but a child in a meltdown situation may well need a sharp slap back into reality.
By contrast, my father never spanked, but when I was old enough to talk back, on more than one occasion, he slapped my face for something I said. I wasn’t a small child - I remember this happening into my early teens (until I was big enough that he knew if he tried it again, I’d hit back).
His anger driven, physical reaction to my remarks - which I’m absolutely certain *deserved* such a slap mind you - told me I’d won.
This kid in this video is acting up on live television. He kinda irks me when he smacks his mom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn18H3FKDV4
I don’t know what I would do if I was in his moms situation but I guess it is partly her fault.
She said she was petrified because of her son, yeah right…She seems like she is sucking up to the camera and trying to contain herself.
That’s true, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. Governments do punish in ways more severe that a good talking-to, such as execution.
I do think it is relevant. We don’t hit people as a form of punishment for misbehaving, breaking contracts, dishonesty. And yet some see it as acceptable when it comes to children.
You claim, and yet the fact is that some children have learned that because their parents will not deliver The Ultimate Punishment of a swat on the butt, they can actually get away with really evil stuff.
I don’t think that that is the issue at all. A child can be made to understand that they won’t get away with really evil stuff without being hit. Hitting is just an easy way to deal with the problem.
I know some parents do claim that as a reason but I don’t agree. The reason is their inability to otherwise properly deal with this child.
Yes, it’s possible to inflict real pain, but then if you wish to live by the ethic of no-contact parenting, that also means you can’t physically restrain a child who wants to flail about wildly during a temper tantrum, and that is just irresponsible parenting.
That is not what I am advocating. Restraining or physically removing a child from a situation are very much different from hitting.
The proper point of a spanking is not to cause pain, it’s to inflict a sufficiently unpleasant experience that the perpetrator understands that violating the rule against torturing small animals will result in some form of justice against him.
There are plenty of unpleasant experiences which do not include physical hitting. Experiences which actually maybe more meaningful to a child as it will be a longer lasting negative effect than few minutes (or seconds) of pain after which he is free to go about his business as usual.
But, she had a habit of throwing her uneaten food on the floor once she was full.
There is always an alternative solution. I am not picking on you.. just using this as an example.
This is very common thing with young kids. That is how they show you that they are done. It sometimes starts because parents have a tendency to push more food on them than they need.
The solution is to give them much less food (and offer then more as they go). Children won’t throw food when they are hungry. They won’t - works like a charm!
… a good friend, and super mom of 4, went to an amusement park with us as part of a group trip. While there, her 4 year old son decided he didn’t like his swim shorts. He pulled them down. She pulled them up again and said don’t do that. He pulled them down again. She swatted his naked behind, once, sharply, right then and there, and pulled them up again and said, “don’t do that”.
He left them up.
I can easily imagine my son doing that. When you tell a kid not to do something, they often aren’t sure if you really mean it. They often judge that it is one of those things that is not that serious, and might even repeat it as a way to tease – as something that you might find icky, but is not really, really disallowed.
In exactly the same situation, I would have explained to my son that if he did it again we would leave, and he would understand that I meant it. The consequence is thus tied to the act. It is fine for him to pull his pants down in some situations, but not in a public place like that. Therefore, pulling pants down means we have to leave.
I appreciate that a smack is sometimes quicker, but I think when parents do that they are assuming that their kids are smarter than they really are. For instance, it might seem obvious to an adult that the smack means “we do not pull our pants down in public”, and it is possible that the kid will actually understand it that way. However, for every 10 smacks, there will be 2 or 3 where the kid will not understand your reasons, but will over-generalize (“naked is bad”) or over-concretize (“applies to amusement park only”) the rule about what is or is not allowed. Taking the time for an explanation is the ideal way, in most typical situations.
over-generalize (“naked is bad”) or over-concretize (“applies to amusement park only”) the rule about what is or is not allowed. Taking the time for an explanation is the ideal way, in most typical situations.
This has also been my observation even when I explain things to my son. I have to ask back to see what, in fact, he understood from what I said and I often find - it is different from what I would assume.
I don’t know what I would do if I was in his moms situation but I guess it is partly her fault.
I would say mostly. What you see here is a result of an ongoing parental failure. This child feels victimized, not respected. The fact that he is crying (and those are not faked tears) is a good sign - he cares - this is not a vicious kid. I of course don’t condone him hitting his mother - but you have asked who’s fault this is.
There is always an alternative solution. I am not picking on you.. just using this as an example.
This is very common thing with young kids. That is how they show you that they are done. It sometimes starts because parents have a tendency to push more food on them than they need.
The solution is to give them much less food (and offer then more as they go). Children won’t throw food when they are hungry. They won’t - works like a charm!
Sophia,
I’m not taking it personally. The solution that you offer is fine, to a point. There are instances in which a child can ask for food or drink, appear genuinely hungry, be offered the amount they usually eat (or less - if one is dubious about their sincerity) and then still decide - impulsively - that they don’t want it and toss it around. Although, there may be some additional cause, not readily apparent e.g. coming down with a cold, teething, tired or overstimulated) that can lead to this misbehavior, the cause is sometimes nothing more complicated than the child acting impulsively or testing you. My son, for example, never threw food. When he was full, he just stopped eating.
With my own children, general meltdowns or tantrums, throwing oneself on the floor etc are usually dealt with by ignoring the behavior. They receive no attention for this and thus learn the behavior is ineffective and stop misbehaving. Sometimes though, a child - even a good one - can become hysterical, throw objects or throw him/herself around, even at you as you try to calm him down. At such points, rare though they might be, we’ve found that all that works is a spank.
To my mind, none of the foregoing is a failure of parenting. Proper parenting requires evaluating the situation and responding appropriately. Flexible and appropriate responses within a consistent and reasonable framework make more sense to me than categorical “never spank” or “always spank” rules.
Since I’ve posted for the anti-spanking side, I think it’s only fair to add that there are some techniques that parents use to control their kids that are far worse than spankings. For instance, parents sometimes use certain types of emotional/psychological techniques that I think are “below” spanking. A well-administered spanking, not done in anger, is “honest” in comparison.
I’ve raised three children, all boys, and spanking is a valuble discipinary tool. It works, and works well when applied with restraint, i.e., infrequently and not in anger. It will not damage thier psyche or any other such nonsense.
As a legal matter, the Indiana Supreme Court recently said “Yes.”
~Q
I was spanked when I was a kid, but my parents did it for different reasons. My dad would always look me in the eye, ask me what I did wrong, and then confirm or clarify. He hated to spank us, but the church and The Bible made it clear that it was good. Sometimes he would sadly(!) recite to me the following verses before I was spanked:
Proverbs 13:24: He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him.
Proverbs 22:15: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
This second one was also often quoted by our pastor for laughs. That only confused me, because any parent who laughed, I assumed liked to spank their kids, and my Dad did not. Obviously the kids (me) didn’t find it fun, either.
My mother, however, at least partly spanked to vent frustration. I wound up fearing her in that regard because the punishments less often corresponded to the crimes. Also, she wanted to inflict pain, not just prove a point.
What was the long-term effect of spanking on me? I can’t think of any. It appears that the ways my parents used spanking, the only effect was getting me not to do something. It worked very well for four of their kids, but had no effect on the fifth (middle child).
Of course, then I became a teenager. To note, my parents never found a way to discipline me between the ages of 14-17, when I’d decided I no longer needed punishment.
The validity of spanking as a disciplinary method has been something I’ve kinda gone back and forth on for quite some time. I was spanked as a kid, and I think that I’ve turned out fairly well. I never got into too much trouble really; never did anything extreme like set a building on fire. However, I did do some things that apparently warranted a spanking. I used to think that I had turned out the way I am as a result of that punishment, and that it was successful. Upon further thought, though, I realize that the punishment didn’t make me avoid doing things that were “wrong” (for whatever reason), but instead made me better at hiding the “wrong” things I did so as not to get spanked. I’ve always done whatever I thought was in my best judgment, but whenever I thought my parents would disagree, I did it anyway but worked hard at hiding it. Turns out, fear of a spanking didn’t really have anything to do with the decisions I made, but it was always in the back of my mind making me work hard to conceal my wrongdoings (again, not that I’ve ever done anything crazy like steal a car or something).
I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to have never been spanked and, instead, reasoned with the way Sophia does with her boy. In my mind, it would have been much more effective. Like I think has been said before, oftentimes kids don’t even know that what they’re doing is wrong and when you punish them for it and don’t explain why they just get confused. How many 4 year olds are gonna think, “I know coloring on the wall is bad, but I’m gonna do it anyway! Muahahahahaha!” For me it was more like, “I’m gonna color on the wall.” *scribbles* Also, no 4 year old is going to think, “I would like to color on the wall, but my parents worked hard to pay for this house and coloring on the walls is disrespectful and difficult to clean off…and it violates property rights. Maybe it’d be best to color on this piece of paper.” :-/ <–And they’re probably not going to get that kind of lesson from a spanking either.
The problem with spanking is that even though you may get them to “act the right way”, they are not acting in the right way because they understand why it is right, but because of fear of pain. In situations where your kid pulls his pants down in a public place over and over again, or where he beats up the neighbor kid, it is okay to give him some sort of physical punishment if he is of the age where you cant reason with him completely. But it is very important, that you constantly explain to your child, why the thing he/she did was wrong, and that you dont leave it just because he stopped doing it because he feared your punishment.
It is possible to get children to act in a right way, but it is of no long term value to you or the child, if he does not understand himself why it is right to act in that way. You can get your child to work hard at school by giving him money or candy when he gets good grades, but this does not mean that he will learn why it is good for himself to work hard at school and learn new things if you dont try and explain it to him in any other way than just “bribing” him. The effects of this will be apparent later on, and in high school/college he may not value education because he has a part-time job, and dont need your bribes any more.
… spanking …
… giving him money or candy …
…if you dont try and explain it to him in any other way than just “bribing” him. The effects of this will be apparent later on,…
That’s a great point. There’s some interesting research on this [see “Influence” by Cialdini], where they found that threats and explanation, both produce decent short-term compliance. [This was telling young boys nto to play with a particularly tempting toy when the researcher would leave the room.] However, explanation produced significantly higher longer-term compliance than threats.
In general, the child understands spanking and bribing as unrelated or external to the action-consequence which the parent is seeking to control. Even a good explanation can appear to be a rationalization if it accompanied by a spanking or a bribe.
The same can sometimes hold true at an adult level, where high salaries do not work as well to motivate performance as does a genuine belief in the organization’s mission.
I read about an interesting method of discipline in a magazine, and I wondered if any the parents here could confirm or deny its efficacy.
The basic idea was to allow a child to experience the full consequences of an incorrect action, rather than punish them and forcing the correct course . An example given was a child that had to be told many times to change for school, which often resulted in shouting matches and threats. So, frustrated by the ineffectualness of this technique, the mother simply took the child to school in his pajamas. He was told, once, that he should be ready to leave at a certain time, and when he was not, he was simply taken to school anyway.
Obviously such a method would not be practical for a child who refused to look both ways before crossing the street, but I wonder at its usefulness in other situations.
The basic idea was to allow a child to experience the full consequences of an incorrect action,…
Experiencing consequences makes them concrete, rather than abstract things mommy says will happen. As you said, there are limits because of safety concerns; but, are also other limits on this – even based on one’s own convenience. So, when it is not too much of an inconvenience to oneself, it’s a good technique to use.
Making the connection: Also, the concrete alone may not be enough. Sometimes, one has to explain to the kid how the consequence was a result of some action, and how it could have been prevented. At other times, that connection will be obvious enough, and if you point it out, you’re a nag, effectively saying “I told you so”.